ArticleScientific reports2021
Unreferenced spatial localization under monocular and dichoptic viewing conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Knowledge of eye position in the brain is critical for localization of objects in space. To investigate the accuracy and precision of eye position feedback in an unreferenced environment, subjects with normal ocular alignment attempted to localize briefly presented targets during monocular and dichoptic viewing. In the task, subjects' used a computer mouse to position a response disk at the remembered location of the target. Under dichoptic viewing (with red (right eye)-green (left eye) glasses), target and response disks were presented to the same or alternate eyes, leading to four conditions [green target-green response cue (LL), green-red (LR), red-green (RL), and red-red (RR)]. Time interval between target and response disks was varied and localization errors were the difference between the estimated and real positions of the target disk. Overall, the precision of spatial localization (variance across trials) became progressively worse with time. Under dichoptic viewing, localization errors were significantly greater for alternate-eye trials as compared to same-eye trials and were correlated to the average phoria of each subject. Our data suggests that during binocular dissociation, spatial localization may be achieved by combining a reliable versional efference copy signal with a proprioceptive signal that is unreliable perhaps because it is from the wrong eye or is too noisy.
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.