Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41201307›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Temporal recalibration to delayed visual consequences of saccades.

Wiebke Nörenberg, Richard Schweitzer, Martin Rolfs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 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.

Wiebke NörenbergDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Richard SchweitzerCluster of Excellence 'Science of Intelligence', Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Martin RolfsDepartment of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accurate inference of causality between actions and their sensory outcomes requires determining their temporal relationship correctly despite variable delays within and across sensory modalities. Temporal recalibration-the perceptual realignment of actions with delayed sensory feedback-has been demonstrated across various sensorimotor domains. Here, we investigate whether this mechanism extends to saccadic eye movements and sensory events contingent on them. In three experiments, participants made horizontal saccades that triggered high-contrast flashes at varying delays. They then reported whether the flashes occurred during or after the saccade, allowing us to track perceived event timing. Exposure to consistent delays between saccade onset and the flash led to a shift in perceptual reports: flashes presented after saccade offset were more often judged as occurring during the movement. This recalibration effect was robust even when we manipulated relevant visual cues such as the presence of a structured background or the continuity of the saccade target. In a replay condition, we found a significant but much smaller recalibration effect between replayed saccades and flash, demonstrating the importance of action execution for visuomotor temporal recalibration. These findings highlight the visual system's remarkable adaptability to temporal delays between eye movements and their sensory consequences. A similar recalibration mechanism may support perceptual stability in natural vision by dynamically realigning saccades with their resulting visual input, even amid changing visual conditions.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalFeedback, SensoryPsychomotor PerformanceSaccadesTime PerceptionVisual PerceptionAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41201307
PMCPMC12603963

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.