ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Shared variance of oculomotor phenotypes in a large sample of healthy young men.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A technical review of canonical correlation analysis for neuroscience applications.Human brain mapping · 2020Pooled it
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
This study used canonical correlation analysis to investigate patterns of shared variance between parameters measured in seven different occulomotor function tasks, namely the visually guided saccade task, the antisaccade task, the closed-loop smooth-pursuit task, the open-loop smooth-pursuit task, and three active visual fixation tasks. These tasks were performed by 2130 young army recruits. Only a small percentage (1-10%) of shared variance existed between sets of parameters for all oculomotor function tasks measured. The most correlated tasks were the visually guided saccade and the antisaccade. The first common factor correlated with speed of performance between these tasks (latency), while the second and third correlated with accuracy of performance. Better performance in active visual fixation tasks correlated with better performance accuracy (lower error rate) and increased speed (lower latency) in the antisaccade and saccade tasks as well as better performance in the closed-loop smooth-pursuit task (increase in gain and decrease in the rate of unwanted saccades during pursuit). Better performance in the closed-loop smooth-pursuit task (increased gain and decreased number of unwanted saccades) also correlated with increased accuracy and increased speed of performing saccades and antisaccades. Finally, the open-loop fixation task had no correlation with all other oculomotor tasks except for a very weak negative correlation with the closed-loop pursuit task where better performance (increased gain) in one correlated with worse performance (decreased gain) in the other. The results of this analysis showed that a small percentage of variance is shared among different oculomotor function tasks. The structure of this shared variance could be used to derive common oculomotor function indices to study their relation to genetic and other sources of inter-subject variation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29947959What 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.