ArticleScientific reports2018
No evidence for confounding orientation-dependent fixational eye movements under baseline conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amodal completion across the brain: The impact of structure and knowledge.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Maintenance of color memoranda in activity-quiescent working memory states: Evidence from impulse perturbation.iScience · 2024Article
- The influence of scene tilt on saccade directions is amplitude dependent.Journal of the neurological sciences · 2023Article
- Microsaccades transiently lateralise EEG alpha activity.Progress in neurobiology · 2023Article
- Encoding of continuous perceptual choices in human early visual cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- Evidence for confounding eye movements under attempted fixation and active viewing in cognitive neuroscience.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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
Decoding has become a standard analysis technique for contemporary cognitive neuroscience. Already more than a decade ago, it was shown that orientation information could be decoded from functional magnetic resonance imaging voxel time series. However, the underlying neural mechanism driving the decodable information is still under debate. Here, we investigated whether eye movements and pupil dilation during attempted fixation and passive viewing of visually presented square-wave grating stimuli could explain orientation decoding. We hypothesized that there are confounding orientation-dependent fixational eye movements (e.g., microsaccades), which systematically alter brain activity, and hence can be the source of decodable information. We repeated one of the original orientation decoding studies, but recorded eye movements instead of brain activity. We found no evidence that stimulus orientation can be decoded from eye movements under baseline conditions, but cannot rule out the potential confounding effect of eye movements under different conditions. With this study, we emphasize the importance, and show the implications of such potential confounding eye movements for decoding studies and cognitive neuroscience in general.
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.