ArticleNeuroscience2013
Scaling of compensatory eye movements during translations: virtual versus real depth.
Article in Neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of target distance on perceptual self-motion thresholds and the vestibulo-ocular reflex during interaural translation.Progress in brain research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Vestibulo-ocular reflexes are the fastest compensatory reflex systems. One of these is the translational vestibulo-ocular reflex (TVOR) which stabilizes the gaze at a given fixation point during whole body translations. For a proper response of the TVOR the eyes have to counter rotate in the head with a velocity that is inversely scaled to viewing distance of the target. It is generally assumed that scaling of the TVOR is automatically coupled to vergence angle at the brainstem level. However, different lines of evidence also argue that in humans scaling of the TVOR also depends on a mechanism that pre-sets gain on a priori knowledge of target distance. To discriminate between these two possibilities we used a real target paradigm with vergence angle coupled to distance and a virtual target paradigm with vergence angle dissociated from target distance. We compared TVOR responses in six subjects who underwent lateral sinusoidal whole-body translations at 1 and 2 Hz. Real targets varied between distance of 50 and 22.4 cm in front of the subjects, whereas the virtual targets consisting of a green and red light emitting diode (LED) were physically located at 50 cm from the subject. Red and green LED's were dichoptically viewed. By shifting the red LED relative to the green LED we created a range of virtual viewing distances where vergence angle changed but the ideal kinematic eye velocity was always the same. Eye velocity data recorded with virtual targets were compared to eye velocity data recorded with real targets. We also used flashing targets (flash frequency 1 Hz, duration 5 ms). During the real, continuous visible targets condition scaling of compensatory eye velocity with vergence angle was nearly perfect. During viewing of virtual targets, and with flashed targets compensatory eye velocity only weakly correlated to vergence angle, indicating that vergence angle is only partially coupled to compensatory eye velocity during translation. Our data suggest that in humans vergence angle as a measure of target distance estimation has only limited use for automatic TVOR scaling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.