Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32687553›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

No exception from Bayes' rule: The presence and absence of the range effect for saccades explained.

André Krügel, Lars Rothkegel, Ralf Engbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

André KrügelExperimental and Biological Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Lars RothkegelExperimental and Biological Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Ralf EngbertExperimental and Biological Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an influential theoretical model, human sensorimotor control is achieved by a Bayesian decision process, which combines noisy sensory information and learned prior knowledge. A ubiquitous signature of prior knowledge and Bayesian integration in human perception and motor behavior is the frequently observed bias toward an average stimulus magnitude (i.e., a central-tendency bias, range effect, regression-to-the-mean effect). However, in the domain of eye movements, there is a recent controversy about the fundamental existence of a range effect in the saccadic system. Here we argue that the problem of the existence of a range effect is linked to the availability of prior knowledge for saccade control. We present results from two prosaccade experiments that both employ an informative prior structure (i.e., a nonuniform Gaussian distribution of saccade target distances). Our results demonstrate the validity of Bayesian integration in saccade control, which generates a range effect in saccades. According to Bayesian integration principles, the saccadic range effect depends on the availability of prior knowledge and varies in size as a function of the reliability of the prior and the sensory likelihood.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremAdultBiasFemaleHumansLearningMaleProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsSaccadesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32687553
PMCPMC7424097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.