ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Effects of Different Numbers of Trials on Saccadometry Test Results.
Article in Brain and behavior, 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
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the number of trials on the recording in the saccadometry test.
methodForty-five healthy participants (mean age ± SD = 25.89 ± 5.2 years) (31 female and 14 male) aged 19-40 years were included in the study. Each participant underwent two saccadometry tests, first a test protocol with 100 trials and then a test protocol with 60 trials, administered by the same experienced clinician, one hour apart. All test settings remained constant between the two test sessions, with the exception of the number of trials.
resultsWith 100 trials, antisaccades had a much higher mean latency (paired samples t-test; t = 4.838; p = 0.0001 < 0.01), directional error rate (Wilcoxon signed ranks test; Z = -1.991; p = 0.047), and overall error rate (Wilcoxon signed rank test; Z = -2.207; p = 0.027) compared to the results obtained from the test protocol with 60 trials. There was no significant difference in mean velocity or accuracy (Wilcoxon signed rank test; p > 0.05). The prosaccades, mean latency, velocity, directional error, and overall error (Wilcoxon signed ranks test; p > 0.05) and mean accuracy (paired samples t-test; p > 0.05) did not differ between 100 and 60 trials.
conclusionThe decline in antisaccade performance with an increasing number of trials may be attributed to the disruptive effect of mental fatigue on the inhibition process. Further research is required to investigate the relationship between mental fatigue and the inhibition process in the context of antisaccade function.
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.