ArticleJournal of cognition2023
Anticipatory Saccades Towards the Future Consequences of One's Actions - an Online Eye Tracking Study.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2023. 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.
- Which side do you take? Instruction versus action in resolving frame of reference conflicts.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
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
When an action contingently yields a predictable effect, we form bi-directional action-effect associations that allow us to anticipate both the location and timing of our actions' effects. This is evident in anticipatory eye movements towards the future effect's location which are performed earlier when the effect's delay is short rather than long. Such anticipatory eye movements reflect a proactive process of effect monitoring which prepares a comparison of expected and actual effects. Here, in two online eye tracking experiments, we manipulated effect locations (spatially compatible vs. incompatible in one half) and effect delays (short vs. long) to determine whether in-laboratory effects could be reliably replicated online using participants' individual webcams. Extending prior research, we further compared irrelevant (Experiment 1) to relevant effects (response to effect feature; Experiment 2). In contrast to prior in-laboratory studies, participants anticipatorily looked towards future effects above chance only when effects were relevant. Post-experiment questions suggested that online-participants intentionally ignore irrelevant information to optimize task performance. Nevertheless, replicating in-laboratory experiments, both for relevant and irrelevant effects, participants' first saccade towards a future effect occurred earlier for the short rather than the long effect delay. Thus, we demonstrate that anticipatory eye movements reflecting a time-sensitive proactive effect monitoring process can reliably be assessed both in-laboratory as well as online. However, when investigating anticipatory saccade frequencies online, additional aspects like effect relevance have to be considered.
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.