ArticlePloS one2014
A unified comparison of stimulus-driven, endogenous mandatory and 'free choice' saccades.
Article in PloS one, 2014. 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.
- The Stochastic Early Reaction, Inhibition, and late Action (SERIA) model for antisaccades.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been claimed that saccades arising from the three saccade triggering modes-stimulus-driven, endogenous mandatory and 'free choice'-are driven by distinct mechanisms. We tested this claim by instructing observers to saccade from a white or black fixation disc to a same polarity (white or black) disc flashed for 100 or 200 ms presented either alone (Exo), or together with an opposite (Endo) or same (EndoFC) polarity disc (blocked and mixed sessions). Target(s) and distractor were presented at three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) relative to the fixation offset (ISI: -200, 0, +200 ms) and were displayed at random locations within a 4°-to-6° eccentricity range. The statistical analysis showed a global saccade triggering mode effect on saccade reaction times (SRTs) with Endo and EndoFC SRTs longer by about 27 ms than Exo-triggered ones but no effect for the Endo-EndoFC comparison. SRTs depended on both ISI (the "gap-effect"), and target duration. Bimodal best fits of the SRT-distributions were found in 65% of cases with their count not different across the three triggering modes. Percentages of saccades in the 'fast' and 'slow' ranges of bimodal fits did not depend on the triggering modes either. Bimodality tests failed to assert a significant difference between these modes. An analysis of the timing of a putative inhibition by the distractor (Endo) or by the duplicated target (EndoFC) yielded no significant difference between Endo and EndoFC saccades but showed a significant shortening with ISI similar to the SRT shortening suggesting that the distractor-target mutual inhibition is itself inhibited by 'fixation' neurons. While other experimental paradigms may well sustain claims of distinct mechanisms subtending the three saccade triggering modes, as here defined reflexive and voluntary saccades appear to differ primarily in the effectiveness with which inhibitory processes slow down the initial fast rise of the saccade triggering signal.
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.