ArticlePhysiological reports2022
Error inconsistency does not generally inhibit saccadic adaptation: Support for linear models of multi-gainfield adaptation.
Article in Physiological reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Error inconsistency does not generally inhibit saccadic adaptation: Support for linear models of multi-gainfield adaptation.Physiological reports · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined saccade adaptation induced by intrasaccadic target steps (ITS). By manipulating the ITS, we investigated potential effects of the consistency of the feedback error on saccade adaptation, which would provide evidence against the linearity of standard models of visuomotor adaptation. Previous studies addressing saccade adaptation arrived at different interpretations, but in these experiments only a single saccade amplitude was trained rather than a variety of saccade amplitudes in random order (mixed training). We extend previous studies by testing for effects of error consistency under additional control conditions described by the factors training protocol (single-amplitude/mixed), ITS direction (onward/backward), and adaptation phase (training/washout). Adaptation dynamics were assessed using a model of "multi-gainfield adaptation" developed by tailoring an existing linear model for visuomotor adaptation of movements with multiple target positions to gain adaptation of saccades with multiple amplitudes. The total adaptive change did not depend on the consistency of the ITS in either mixed or single-amplitude training. The initial adaptation speed was lower with inconsistent ITS. However, the effect on adaptation speed occurred only during amplitude reduction and not during enlargement or washout. These results corroborate the linearity of saccade adaptation in that the mean error is the main factor determining the total adaptive change, independent of error consistency. The multi-gainfield adaptation model was confirmed in that the retention rate and error sensitivity did not depend on the training protocol. The absence of effects of error consistency on saccade adaptation is relevant in the context of adaptive deficits in movement disorders.
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.