ArticleJournal of vision2025
Revealing temporal dynamics of the visuomotor system via continuous tracking of position and attribute.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous tracking is the recently developed psychophysical technique for efficiently estimating human visual temporal characteristics. The standard version of the task, referred to as position tracking (PT), asks participants to track the location of a continuously moving target by a motor response (e.g., mouse movement). Some studies have also used a variant method, attribute tracking (AT), which requires participants to track and reproduce a continuously changing attribute (e.g., luminance) of the target instead of position. For both PT and AT, the temporal dynamics of the entire system from vision to action can be estimated from the cross-correlogram (CCG) of the trajectory between the stimulus and response. The similarities and differences in CCG between PT and AT, however, remain elusive but were examined in this study. Experiment 1 compared the two CCGs using luminance-defined circular patches, color-contrast-defined patches, and luminance-defined patches with various spatial frequencies. The results indicate that the PT response was faster and less affected by the stimulus variables than the AT response. Experiment 2 showed that these differences could be reduced by making the visuomotor mapping of PT less direct by reversing the motor response direction and by making the local stimulus change magnitude comparable between PT and AT. The comparison with the traditional reaction time measures (Experiment 3) further showed that the peak latency of CCG from PT aligned better with the simple reaction time, whereas that from AT aligned better with the choice reaction time. These results indicate that CCG is more sluggish for AT than for PT because AT includes the process of identifying the stimulus content (attribute change direction) and mapping it to a motor response arbitrarily specified by the experimenter, and because the effective stimulus change magnitude for AT is often weaker than that for PT. These findings provide a clearer understanding of the meaning of CCGs measured by the two types of continuous tracking tasks.
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.