Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28539394›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2017

Automatic and intentional influences on saccade landing.

David Aagten-Murphy, Paul M Bays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2017. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Contributions of Distinct Attention Mechanisms to Saccadic Choices in a Gamified, Dynamic Environment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Coupling of saccade plans to endogenous attention during urgent choices.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  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

2 authors.

David Aagten-MurphyDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom david.aagtenmurphy@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0725-9448
Paul M BaysDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Saccadic eye movements enable us to rapidly direct our high-resolution fovea onto relevant parts of the visual world. However, while we can intentionally select a location as a saccade target, the wider visual scene also influences our executed movements. In the presence of multiple objects, eye movements may be "captured" to the location of a distractor object, or be biased toward the intermediate position between objects (the "global effect"). Here we examined how the relative strengths of the global effect and visual object capture changed with saccade latency, the separation between visual items and stimulus contrast. Importantly, while many previous studies have omitted giving observers explicit instructions, we instructed participants to either saccade to a specified target object or to the midpoint between two stimuli. This allowed us to examine how their explicit movement goal influenced the likelihood that their saccades terminated at either the target, distractor, or intermediate locations. Using a probabilistic mixture model, we found evidence that both visual object capture and the global effect co-occurred at short latencies and declined as latency increased. As object separation increased, capture came to dominate the landing positions of fast saccades, with reduced global effect. Using the mixture model fits, we dissociated the proportion of unavoidably captured saccades to each location from those intentionally directed to the task goal. From this we could extract the time course of competition between automatic capture and intentional targeting. We show that task instructions substantially altered the distribution of saccade landing points, even at the shortest latencies.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceSaccadesAdolescentAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaEye Movement MeasurementsHumansModels, NeurologicalPhotic StimulationReaction TimeVisual PerceptionYoung Adultglobal effectoculomotor capturetarget selectiontop-down selection

Identifiers

PMID28539394
PMCPMC5547269

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.