ArticleVisual cognition2024
Individual differences in first saccade latency predict overt behavior during search for a contour integration target.
Article in Visual cognition, 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.
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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
During everyday functioning, the visual world is explored by using saccadic eye movements to direct the information-rich fovea to specific locations. These eye movements are guided by visual input from outside of the fovea, where processes of perceptual organization piece together scene and object structure, including contour information. The current study investigates variation in how the typical population uses eye movements to complete a search for a closed-contour target formed by oriented gabor patches. Performance at contour integration tasks varies across a range of clinical populations, although it is unknown the degree to which performance differs within the typical population and if these differences relate to how individuals move their eyes during the task. The results show large variation in first saccade latency between individuals, with these differences correlating with first saccade accuracy and the total number of fixations needed to complete the task. Within-subject performance variation across trials mirrored these effects, although equivalent changes in first saccade latency did not influence saccadic behavior for all participants in the same way. This finding that longer first saccade latency improves eye movement guidance differently across participants is discussed in terms of the potential benefits of having additional time for recurrent processing and individual differences in ability to spatially spread attention.
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.