ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Pre-saccadic Preview Shapes Post-Saccadic Processing More Where Perception is Poor.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pre-saccadic preview of a peripheral target enhances the efficiency of its post-saccadic processing, termed the extrafoveal preview effect. Peripheral visual performance -and thus the quality of the preview- varies around the visual field, even at iso-eccentric locations: it is better along the horizontal than vertical meridian and along the lower than upper vertical meridian. To investigate whether these polar angle asymmetries influence the preview effect, we asked human participants (to preview four tilted gratings at the cardinals, until a central cue indicated to which one to saccade. During the saccade, the target orientation either remained or slightly changed (valid/invalid preview). After saccade landing, participants discriminated the orientation of the (briefly presented) second grating. Stimulus contrast was titrated with adaptive staircases to assess visual performance. Expectedly, valid previews increased participants' post-saccadic contrast sensitivity. This preview benefit, however, was inversely related to polar angle perceptual asymmetries; largest at the upper, and smallest at the horizontal meridian. This finding reveals that the visual system compensates for peripheral asymmetries when integrating information across saccades, by selectively assigning higher weights to the less-well perceived preview information. Our study supports the recent line of evidence showing that perceptual dynamics around saccades vary with eye movement direction.
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.