ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2021
Under time pressure, the exogenous modulation of saccade plans is ubiquitous, intricate, and lawful.
Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contributions of Distinct Attention Mechanisms to Saccadic Choices in a Gamified, Dynamic Environment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Contributions of distinct attention mechanisms to saccadic choices in a gamified, dynamic environment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Non-decision time: The Higgs Boson of decision.Psychological review · 2025Article
- Location- and feature-based selection histories make independent, qualitatively distinct contributions to urgent visuomotor performance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The reduction of saccadic inhibition by distractor repetition.Journal of neurophysiology · 2023Article
- Stimulus salience conflicts and colludes with endogenous goals during urgent choices.iScience · 2023Article
- A conflict between spatial selection and evidence accumulation in area LIP.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Exogenous capture accounts for fundamental differences between pro- and antisaccade performance.eLife · 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
Abstract
The choice of where to look next is determined by both exogenous (bottom-up) and endogenous (top-down) factors, but details of their interaction and distinct contributions to target selection have remained elusive. Recent experiments with urgent choice tasks, in which stimuli are evaluated while motor plans are already advancing, have greatly clarified these contributions. Specifically, exogenous modulations associated with stimulus detection act rapidly and briefly (∼25 ms) to automatically halt and/or boost ongoing motor plans as per spatial congruence rules. These stereotypical modulations explain, in quantitative detail, characteristic features of many saccadic tasks (e.g. antisaccade, countermanding, saccadic-inhibition, gap, and double-step). Thus, the same low-level visuomotor interactions contribute to diverse oculomotor phenomena traditionally attributed to different neural mechanisms.
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.