Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25183159›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2014

Oculomotor inhibitory control in express saccade makers.

Felicity D A Wolohan, Paul C Knox

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Felicity D A WolohanDepartment of Eye and Vision Science, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Thompson Yates Building, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK, wolohan@liverpool.ac.uk.
Paul C Knox
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Express saccade makers (ESMs) produce high proportions (>30 %) of low-latency (80-130 ms) express saccades in tasks in which such responses are usually suppressed. In addition, high directional error rates on the antisaccade (AS) task suggest a failure of oculomotor inhibitory mechanisms in ESMs. However, the AS task is complex and does not provide a measure of inhibitory processes in isolation. We therefore examined inhibitory control in 25 ESM and 28 non-ESM ('Norm') participants, using a minimally delayed oculomotor response (MDOR) task. After a randomised fixation period, a pro-saccade target appeared for 200 or 1,000 ms. Participants were instructed to maintain fixation and saccade to the target position upon target offset. In a control task, they saccaded on target onset. Overall, saccade latency was considerably increased in the MDOR task compared to the control task (354 vs. 170 ms; p < 0.001), and we also observed a latency modulation with display time (200: 399, 1,000: 302 ms; p < 0.001). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups (p = 0.29). Errors consisted primarily of responses to target onsets and error rates were comparable between the groups (p = 0.33). The overproduction of fast, reflexive responses was still observed in ESMs who generated a higher proportion of their errors within the express latency range (p < 0.001). We confirmed that in the AS task, the ESMs exhibited a higher directional error rate (p = 0.03). These results suggest that the performance 'deficit' observed on the AS task in ESMs cannot be attributed to generally weaker inhibitory control.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeSaccadesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25183159
OpenAlexW2057973931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.