ArticleScientific reports2020
Perception of saccadic reaction time.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- In pursuit of saccade awareness: Limited volitional control and minimal conscious access to catch-up saccades during smooth pursuit eye movements.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Sensorimotor confidence for tracking eye movements.Journal of vision · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
That saccadic reaction times (SRTs) may depend on reinforcement contingencies has been repeatedly demonstrated. It follows that one must be able to discriminate one's latencies to adequately assign credit to one's actions, which is to connect behaviour to its consequence. To quantify the ability to perceive one's SRT, we used an adaptive procedure to train sixteen participants in a stepping visual target saccade paradigm. Subsequently, we measured their RTs perceptual threshold at 75% in a conventional constant stimuli procedure. For each trial, observers had to saccade to a stepping target. Then, in a 2-AFC task, they had to choose one value representing the actual SRT, while the other value proportionally differed from the actual SRT. The relative difference between the two alternatives was computed by either adding or subtracting from the actual SRT a percent-difference value randomly chosen among a fixed set. Feedback signalling the correct choice was provided after each response. Overall, our results showed that the 75% SRT perceptual threshold averaged 23% (about 40 ms). The ability to discriminate small SRT differences provides support for the possibility that the credit assignment problem may be solved even for short reaction times.
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.