ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Differential Effects of Visual and Auditory Cognitive Tasks on Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selection with support: How cross-modal attention shapes smooth pursuit eye movements.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Residual Foveal Motion Facilitates Processing of Visually Tracked Objects.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smooth pursuit eye movements (SPEM) are important to gather visual information that guides our interactions with moving objects (e.g., tracking a tennis ball, or following a car when driving). In many neurological conditions, from Parkinson's disease to stroke, the voluntary control of SPEM can be compromised. Therefore, SPEMs can serve as sensitive proxies for assessing cognitive and sensorimotor function. Prior research has shown that SPEMs are influenced by attention and working memory load, yet it remains unclear how the sensory modality of concurrent tasks interacts with these effects. Here, we conducted a 3 (working memory load: no load, easy [low load], and hard [high load]) × 2 (sensory modality: visual vs. auditory) experiment to examine how working memory load and secondary task modality interact to affect SPEM in healthy young adults. Participants tracked a moving circle while simultaneously performing an arithmetic task, where they added either constant (1) or variable (1-5) numbers which were presented visually or auditorily. Our results showed that a secondary auditory task increased tracking variability during high cognitive load. In contrast, we found that the visual task improved tracking, reducing variability irrespective of cognitive load. We interpret our results as evidence that auditory processing requires additional top-down control that is critical for the control of smooth pursuit, diverting resources required for smooth pursuit and, consequently, increasing SPEM variability. These findings emphasize the importance of sensory modality in understanding the interactions between working memory and oculomotor control. We suggest that auditory secondary cognitive tasks may provide a more sensitive test of sensorimotor control deficits in future research with clinical populations.
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.