ArticleJournal of vision2018
Recentering bias for temporal saccades only: Evidence from binocular recordings of eye movements.
Article in Journal of vision, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interocular Timing Differences in Horizontal Saccades of Ball Game Players.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Modulation of the peak velocities and gains of abduction and adduction saccades according to head position.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- Neuro-ophthalmic and Neuro-otologic Evaluation in Individuals with Motion Sickness Susceptibility.The journal of international advanced otology · 2024Article
- Motor "laziness" constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Eye Movement Alterations in Post-COVID-19 Condition: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Contrasting attentional biases in a saccadic choice task.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Saccade accuracy as an indicator of the competition between functional asymmetries in vision.Experimental brain research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is well known that the saccadic system presents multiple asymmetries. Notably, temporal (as opposed to nasal) saccades, centripetal (as opposed to centrifugal) saccades (i.e., the recentering bias) and saccades from the abducting eye (as opposed to the concomitant saccades from the adducting eye) exhibit higher peak velocities. However, these naso-temporal and centripetal-centrifugal asymmetries have always been studied separately. It is thus unknown which asymmetry prevails when there is a conflict between both asymmetries, i.e., in case of centripetal nasal saccades or centrifugal temporal saccades. This study involved binocular recordings of eye movements to examine both the naso-temporal and centripetal-centrifugal asymmetries so as to determine how they work together. Twenty-eight participants had to make saccades toward stimuli presented either centrally or in the periphery in binocular conditions. We found that temporal and abducting saccades always exhibit higher peak velocities than nasal and adducting saccades, irrespective of their centripetal or centrifugal nature. However, we showed that the velocity advantage for centripetal saccades is only found for temporal and not for nasal saccades. Such a result is of importance as it could provide new insights about the physiological origins of the asymmetries found in the saccadic system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29356814What 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.