ArticleJournal of vision2021
The latency of spontaneous eye blinks marks relevant visual and auditory information processing.
Article in Journal of vision, 2021. 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.
- Dissociable Pupil and Oculomotor Markers of Attention Allocation and Distractor Suppression during Listening.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- The Role of Spontaneous Eye Blinks in Temporal Perception: An Eye Tracking Study.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Multiunit and oscillatory activity in macaque V1 is modulated by blinking in a context-dependent way.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- The timing of spontaneous eye blinks in text reading suggests cognitive role.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Motor restrictions impair divergent thinking during walking and during sitting.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Open multimodal iEEG-fMRI dataset from naturalistic stimulation with a short audiovisual film.Scientific data · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eye blinks are influenced by external sensory and internal cognitive factors, as mainly shown in the visual domain. In previous studies, these factors corresponded to the time period of task-relevant sensory information and were often linked to a motor response. Our aim was to dissociate the influence of overall sensory input duration, task-relevant information duration, and the motor response to further understand how the temporal modulation of blinks compares among sensory modalities. Using a visual and an auditory temporal judgment task, we found that blinks were suppressed during stimulus presentation in both domains and that the overall input length had a significant positive relationship with the length of this suppression (i.e., with the latency of the first blink after stimulus onset). Importantly, excluding the influence of the overall sensory input duration we could show that the duration of task-relevant input had an additional influence on blink latency in the visual and the auditory domain. Our findings further suggest that this influence was not based on sensory input but on top-down processes. We could exclude task difficulty and the timing of the motor response as driving factors in the blink modulation. Our results suggest a sensory domain-independent modulation of blink latencies, introduced by changes in the length of the task-relevant, attended period. Therefore, not only do blinks mark the timing of sensory input or the preparation of the motor output, but they can also act as precise indicators of periods of cognitive processing.
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.