ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Do microsaccades vary with discriminability around the visual field?
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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microsaccades-tiny fixational eye movements- improve discriminability in high acuity tasks in the foveola. To investigate whether they help compensate for low discriminability at perifovea, we examined MS characteristics relative to the adult visual performance field, which is characterized by two perceptual asymmetries: Horizontal-Vertical Anisotropy (better discrimination along the horizontal than vertical meridian), and Vertical Meridian Asymmetry (better discrimination along the lower- than upper-vertical meridian). We investigated whether and to what extent microsaccade directionality varies when stimuli are at isoeccentric locations along the cardinals under conditions of heterogeneous discriminability (Experiment 1) and homogeneous discriminability, equated by adjusting stimulus contrast (Experiment 2). Participants performed a two-alternative forced-choice orientation discrimination task. In both experiments, performance was better on trials without microsaccades between ready signal onset and stimulus offset than on trials with microsaccades. Across the trial sequence the microsaccade rate and directional pattern were similar across locations. Our results indicate that microsaccades were similar regardless of stimulus discriminability and target location, except during the response period-once the stimuli were no longer present and target location no longer uncertain-when microsaccades were biased toward the target location. Thus, this study reveals that microsaccades do not flexibly adapt as a function of varying discriminability in a basic visual task around the visual field.
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.