Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37251031›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Regularities in vertical saccadic metrics: new insights, and future perspectives.

Harold H Greene, Vaibhav A Diwadkar, James M Brown

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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.

Harold H GreeneDepartment of Psychology, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, United States.
Vaibhav A DiwadkarDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Brain Imaging Research Division, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States.
James M BrownDepartment of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Asymmetries in processing by the healthy brain demonstrate regularities that facilitate the modeling of brain operations. The goal of the present study was to determine asymmetries in saccadic metrics during visual exploration, devoid of confounding clutter in the visual field. Methods: Twenty healthy adults searched for a small, low-contrast gaze-contingent target on a blank computer screen. The target was visible, only if eye fixation was within a 5 deg. by 5 deg. area of the target's location. Results: Replicating previously-reported asymmetries, repeated measures contrast analyses indicated that up-directed saccades were executed earlier, were smaller in amplitude, and had greater probability than down-directed saccades. Given that saccade velocities are confounded by saccade amplitudes, it was also useful to investigate saccade kinematics of visual exploration, as a function of vertical saccade direction. Saccade kinematics were modeled for each participant, as a square root relationship between average saccade velocity (i.e., average velocity between launching and landing of a saccade) and corresponding saccade amplitude ( Discussion: To motivate future research, an ecological theory of asymmetric pre-saccadic inhibition was presented to explain the collection of vertical saccadic regularities. For example, given that the theory proposes strong inhibition for the releasing of reflexive down-directed prosaccades (cued by an attracting peripheral target below eye fixation), and weak inhibition for the releasing of up-directed prosaccades (cued by an attracting peripheral target above eye fixation), a prediction for future studies is longer reaction times for vertical

Indexed as

asymmetryfixation durationinhibitionsaccade programmingvertical saccades

Identifiers

PMID37251031
PMCPMC10213562

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.