Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25832623›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2015

Disrupting saccadic updating: visual interference prior to the first saccade elicits spatial errors in the secondary saccade in a double-step task.

Antimo Buonocore, David Melcher

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Antimo BuonocoreDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, 38068, Rovereto, Italy, antimo.buonocore@unitn.it.
David Melcher
Center for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems · ITUniversity of Trento · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When we explore the visual environment around us, we produce sequences of very precise eye movements aligning the objects of interest with the most sensitive part of the retina for detailed visual processing. A copy of the impending motor command, the corollary discharge, is sent as soon as the first saccade in a sequence is ready to monitor the next fixation location and correctly plan the subsequent eye movement. Neurophysiological investigations have shown that chemical interference with the corollary discharge generates a distinct pattern of spatial errors on sequential eye movements, with similar results also from clinical and TMS studies. Here, we used saccadic inhibition to interfere with the temporal domain of the first of two subsequent saccades during a standard double-step paradigm. In two experiments, we report that the temporal interference on the primary saccade led to a specific error in the final landing position of the second saccade that was consistent with previous lesion and neurophysiological studies, but without affecting the spatial characteristics of the first eye movement. On the other hand, single-step saccades were differently influence by the flash, with a general undershoot, more pronounced for larger saccadic amplitude. These findings show that a flashed visual transient can disrupt saccadic updating in a double-step task, possibly due to the mismatch between the planned and the executed saccadic eye movement.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnalysis of VarianceFemaleFixation, OcularHumansInhibition, PsychologicalMaleOcular Motility DisordersOrientationPhotic StimulationReaction TimeSaccadesSpace PerceptionSystoleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25832623
OpenAlexW1978959502

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.