Trial reportJournal of neurophysiology2014
Adaptation of naturally paced saccades.
Trial report in Journal of neurophysiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A generative learning model for saccade adaptation.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Saccadic adaptation to a systematically varying disturbance.Journal of neurophysiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the natural environment, humans make saccades almost continuously. In many eye movement experiments, however, observers are required to fixate for unnaturally long periods of time. The resulting long and monotonous experimental sessions can become especially problematic when collecting data in a clinical setting, where time can be scarce and subjects easily fatigued. With this in mind, we tested whether the well-studied motor learning process of saccade adaptation could be induced with a dramatically shortened intertrial interval. Observers made saccades to targets that stepped left or right either ∼250 ms or ∼1,600 ms after the saccade landed. In experiment I, we tested baseline saccade parameters to four different target amplitudes (5°, 10°, 15°, and 20°) in the two timing settings. In experiments II and III, we adapted 10° saccades via 2° intrasaccadic steps either backwards or forwards, respectively. Seven subjects performed eight separate adaptation sessions (2 intertrial timings × 2 adaptation direction × 2 session trial lengths). Adaptation proceeded remarkably similarly in both timing conditions across the multiple sessions. In the faster-paced sessions, robust adaptation was achieved in under 2 min, demonstrating the efficacy of our approach to streamlining saccade adaptation experiments. Although saccade amplitudes were similar between conditions, the faster-paced condition unexpectedly resulted in significantly higher peak velocities in all subjects. This surprising finding demonstrates that the stereotyped "main sequence" relationship between saccade amplitude and peak velocity is not as fixed as originally thought.
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.