ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2016
Decisions in motion: vestibular contributions to saccadic target selection.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical treatment of symptomatic pineal cysts without hydrocephalus-meta-analysis of the published literature.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Pooled it
- Superior semicircular canal dehiscence and subsequent closure induces reversible impaired decision-making.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Prior context influences motor brain areas in an auditory oddball task and prefrontal cortex multitasking modelling.Brain informatics · 2021Article
- Decisions in motion: passive body acceleration modulates hand choice.Journal of neurophysiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The natural world continuously presents us with many opportunities for action, and thus a process of target selection must precede action execution. While there has been considerable progress in understanding target selection in stationary environments, little is known about target selection when we are in motion. Here we investigated the effect of self-motion signals on saccadic target selection in a dynamic environment. Human subjects were sinusoidally translated (f = 0.6 Hz, 30-cm peak-to-peak displacement) along an interaural axis with a vestibular sled. During the motion two visual targets were presented asynchronously but equidistantly on either side of fixation. Subjects had to look at one of these targets as quickly as possible. With an adaptive approach, the time delay between these targets was adjusted until the subject selected both targets equally often. We determined this balanced time delay for different phases of the motion in order to distinguish the effects of body acceleration and velocity on saccadic target selection. Results show that acceleration (or position, as these are indistinguishable during sinusoidal motion), but not velocity, affects target selection for saccades. Subjects preferred to look at targets in the direction of the acceleration-the leftward target was preferred when the sled accelerated to the left, and vice versa. Saccadic reaction times mimicked this selection bias by being reliably shorter to targets in the direction of acceleration. Our results provide evidence that saccade target selection mechanisms are modulated by self-motion signals, which could be derived directly from the otolith system.
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.