Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27351741›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2016

Modeling Inter-trial Variability of Saccade Trajectories: Effects of Lesions of the Oculomotor Part of the Fastigial Nucleus.

Thomas Eggert, Farrel R Robinson, Andreas Straube

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas EggertDepartment of Neurology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Farrel R RobinsonDepartment of Biological Structure, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3903-8327
Andreas StraubeDepartment of Neurology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

VISUAL SCIENCES TRAINING PROGRAMT32EY007031 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Wyeth Daniel Bair, Anitha Pasupathy · 1985 to 2026
$6.1M
Role of cerebellar parallel fibers in saccade accuracyR01EY018585 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ROBINSON, FARREL R · 2008 to 2011
$2.0M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018585NEI NIH HHS T32 EY007031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates the inter-trial variability of saccade trajectories observed in five rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). For each time point during a saccade, the inter-trial variance of eye position and its covariance with eye end position were evaluated. Data were modeled by a superposition of three noise components due to 1) planning noise, 2) signal-dependent motor noise, and 3) signal-dependent premotor noise entering within an internal feedback loop. Both planning noise and signal-dependent motor noise (together called accumulating noise) predict a simple S-shaped variance increase during saccades, which was not sufficient to explain the data. Adding noise within an internal feedback loop enabled the model to mimic variance/covariance structure in each monkey, and to estimate the noise amplitudes and the feedback gain. Feedback noise had little effect on end point noise, which was dominated by accumulating noise. This analysis was further extended to saccades executed during inactivation of the caudal fastigial nucleus (cFN) on one side of the cerebellum. Saccades ipsiversive to an inactivated cFN showed more end point variance than did normal saccades. During cFN inactivation, eye position during saccades was statistically more strongly coupled to eye position at saccade end. The proposed model could fit the variance/covariance structure of ipsiversive and contraversive saccades. Inactivation effects on saccade noise are explained by a decrease of the feedback gain and an increase of planning and/or signal-dependent motor noise. The decrease of the fitted feedback gain is consistent with previous studies suggesting a role for the cerebellum in an internal feedback mechanism. Increased end point variance did not result from impaired feedback but from the increase of accumulating noise. The effects of cFN inactivation on saccade noise indicate that the effects of cFN inactivation cannot be explained entirely with the cFN's direct connections to the saccade-related premotor centers in the brainstem.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAnimalsCerebellar NucleiComputer SimulationFeedback, SensoryHumansMacaca mulattaMotor NeuronsReproducibility of ResultsSaccadesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27351741
PMCPMC4924843
OpenAlexW2468712373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.