ArticleExperimental brain research2006
Are somatosensory saccades voluntary or reflexive?
Article in Experimental brain research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies.PloS one · 2020Article
- Cortical and cerebellar activation induced by reflexive and voluntary saccades.Experimental brain research · 2009Article
- Guidance of visual direction by topographical vibrotactile cues on the torso.Experimental brain research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study examines whether the distinction between voluntary (endogenous) and reflexive (stimulus-elicited) saccades made in the visual modality can be applied to the somatosensory modality. The behavioural characteristics of putative reflexive pro-saccades and voluntary anti-saccades made to visual and somatosensory stimuli were examined. Both visual and somatosensory pro-saccades had much shorter latency than voluntary anti-saccades made in the direction opposite to a peripheral stimulus. Furthermore, erroneous pro-saccades were made towards both visual and somatosensory stimuli on approximately 11-13% of anti-saccade trials. The observed difference in pro- and anti-saccade latency and the presence of pro-saccade errors in the anti-saccade task indicates that a somatosensory stimulus can elicit a form of reflexive saccade comparable to pro-saccades made in the visual modality. It is proposed that a peripheral somatosensory stimulus can elicit a form of reflexive saccade and that somatosensory saccades do not depend exclusively on higher level endogenous control processes for their generation. However, a comparison of the underlying latency distributions and of peak-velocity profiles of saccades made to visual and somatosensory stimuli showed that this distinction may be less clearly defined for the somatosensory modality and that modality-specific differences (such as differences in neural conduction rates) in the underlying oculomotor structures involved in saccade target selection also need to be considered. It is further suggested that a broader conceptualisation of saccades and saccade programming beyond the simple voluntary and reflexive dichotomy, that takes into account the control processes involved in saccade generation for both modalities, may be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16273407What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.