Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35894379›Full record

ArticleeLife2022

Exogenous capture accounts for fundamental differences between pro- and antisaccade performance.

Allison T Goldstein, Terrence R Stanford, Emilio Salinas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Coupling of saccade plans to endogenous attention during urgent choices.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Allison T GoldsteinDepartment of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5475-5965
Terrence R StanfordDepartment of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0759-5599
Emilio SalinasDepartment of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7411-5693

Funding

CRCNS: investigating perceptual processing speed and its impact on choice behaviorR01EY025172 · NEI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SALINAS, EMILIO, STANFORD, TERRENCE R · 2016 to 2024
$3.6M
Training Program in Multisensory ProcessesT32NS073553 · NINDS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI STEIN, BARRY E · 2011 to 2020
$1.7M
A computational framework for attention during urgent choicesR21MH120784 · NIMH · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SALINAS, EMILIO, STANFORD, TERRENCE R · 2019 to 2020
$426k
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025172NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH120784NINDS NIH HHS T32 NS073553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To generate the next eye movement, oculomotor circuits take into consideration the physical salience of objects in view and current behavioral goals, exogenous and endogenous influences, respectively. However, the interactions between exogenous and endogenous mechanisms and their dynamic contributions to target selection have been difficult to resolve because they evolve extremely rapidly. In a recent study (Salinas et al., 2019), we achieved the necessary temporal precision using an urgent variant of the antisaccade task wherein motor plans are initiated early and choice accuracy depends sharply on when exactly the visual cue information becomes available. Empirical and modeling results indicated that the exogenous signal arrives ∼80 ms after cue onset and rapidly accelerates the (incorrect) plan toward the cue, whereas the informed endogenous signal arrives ∼25 ms later to favor the (correct) plan away from the cue. Here, we scrutinize a key mechanistic hypothesis about this dynamic, that the exogenous and endogenous signals act at different times and independently of each other. We test quantitative model predictions by comparing the performance of human participants instructed to look toward a visual cue or away from it under high urgency. We find that, indeed, the exogenous response is largely impervious to task instructions; it simply flips its sign relative to the correct choice, and this largely explains the drastic differences in psychometric performance between the two tasks. Thus, saccadic choices are strongly dictated by the alignment between salience and behavioral goals.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsSaccadesHumansPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction Timedecision makinghumanneurosciencesaccadic eye movementssaliencevisual attentionvisuomotor control

Identifiers

PMID35894379
PMCPMC9328762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.