Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37150766›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Peripheral targets attenuate miniature eye movements during fixation.

Scott N J Watamaniuk, Jeremy B Badler, Stephen J Heinen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Scott N J WatamaniukWright State University, Dayton, USA. scott.watamaniuk@wright.edu.
Jeremy B BadlerThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, USA.
Stephen J HeinenThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fixating a small dot is a universal technique for stabilizing gaze in vision and eye movement research, and for clinical imaging of normal and diseased retinae. During fixation, microsaccades and drifts occur that presumably benefit vision, yet microsaccades compromise image stability and usurp task attention. Previous work suggested that microsaccades and smooth pursuit catch-up saccades are controlled by similar mechanisms. This, and other previous work showing fewer catch-up saccades during smooth pursuit of peripheral targets suggested that a peripheral target might similarly mitigate microsaccades. Here, human observers fixated one of three stimuli: a small central dot, the center of a peripheral, circular array of small dots, or a central/peripheral stimulus created by combining the two. The microsaccade rate was significantly lower with the peripheral array than with the dot. However, inserting the dot into the array increased the microsaccade rate to single-dot levels. Drift speed also decreased with the peripheral array, both with and without the central dot. Eye position variability was higher with the array than with the composite stimulus. The results suggest that analogous to the foveal pursuit, foveating a stationary target engages the saccadic system likely compromising retinal-image stability. In contrast, fixating a peripheral stimulus improves stability, thereby affording better retinal imaging and releasing attention for experimental tasks.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsFixation, OcularHumansPursuit, SmoothSaccadesVision, OcularVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID37150766
PMCPMC10164736

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.