Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40877325›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Task-relevant information availability shapes eye movements and perceptual judgment confidence.

Thibault J Desbordes, Nadia Alahyane, Alain Guillaume

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thibault J DesbordesVision Action Cognition, Université Paris Cité, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Nadia AlahyaneVision Action Cognition, Université Paris Cité, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Alain GuillaumeVision Action Cognition, Université Paris Cité, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. alain.guillaume@u-paris.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans continuously decide where to look to gather task-relevant information. While affective rewards such as money are known to bias gaze direction, it remains unclear whether non-affective informational value can similarly shape oculomotor decisions. Here, we modulated the availability of task-relevant visual information at saccade targets by probabilistically varying its presentation duration, in a perceptual judgment task performed by human participants. Results showed that participants developed implicit biases, increasingly avoiding an experimentally introduced low-information region. These learned preferences were associated with longer saccade latencies toward non-preferred regions, similar to patterns observed with affective reward learning. However, saccade peak velocity remained unchanged across locations. Perceptual accuracy was not influenced either. When participants' confidence ratings reliably distinguished correct from incorrect responses, confidence was higher for preferred regions, suggesting a dissociation between perceptual and metacognitive performance. These findings demonstrate that the probability of accessing easily usable information can be implicitly learned to guide eye movement decisions, much like reward. Moreover, subjective confidence can be linked to learned preferences, without modulation of perceptual performance. Our results highlight that informational value, independent of affective cues, shapes oculomotor decision-making and post-perceptual judgment confidence.

Indexed as

Eye MovementsJudgmentVisual PerceptionAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMetacognitionReaction TimeRewardSaccadesYoung AdultDecision makingImplicit learningMetacognitionSaccadesSelection history

Identifiers

PMID40877325
PMCPMC12394459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.