ArticleScientific reports2017
Potential Systematic Interception Errors are Avoided When Tracking the Target with One's Eyes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Keeping your eye, head, and hand on the ball: Rapidly orchestrated visuomotor behavior in a continuous action task.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Perception-action coupling during discriminative interceptive actions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Prediction of time to contact under perceptual and contextual uncertainties.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Visuomotor predictors of interception.PloS one · 2024Article
- The effect of impaired velocity signals on goal-directed eye and hand movements.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Motion-in-depth effects on interceptive timing errors in an immersive environment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effects of visual blur and contrast on spatial and temporal precision in manual interception.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
- Gravity and Known Size Calibrate Visual Information to Time Parabolic Trajectories.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Looking away from a moving target does not disrupt the way in which the movement toward the target is guided.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Accuracy of Intercepting Moving Tactile Targets.Perception · 2019Article
- Corrective saccades influence velocity judgments and interception.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Eye movements in interception with delayed visual feedback.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Directing our gaze towards a moving target has two known advantages for judging its trajectory: the spatial resolution with which the target is seen is maximized, and signals related to the eyes' movements are combined with retinal cues to better judge the target's motion. We here explore whether tracking a target with one's eyes also prevents factors that are known to give rise to systematic errors in judging retinal speeds from resulting in systematic errors in interception. Subjects intercepted white or patterned disks that moved from left to right across a large screen at various constant velocities while either visually tracking the target or fixating the position at which they were required to intercept the target. We biased retinal motion perception by moving the pattern within the patterned targets. This manipulation led to large systematic errors in interception when subjects were fixating, but not when they were tracking the target. The reduction in the errors did not depend on how smoothly the eyes were tracking the target shortly before intercepting it. We propose that tracking targets with one's eyes when one wants to intercept them makes one less susceptible to biases in judging their motion.
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.