ArticleCognitive science2025
Using Eye Movements to Understand Sense of Control in Situated Action.
Article in Cognitive science, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This series of studies investigated the interplay between the Sense of Control, continuous action control, and eye-movement behavior in dynamic and uncertain environments. Across three experiments, we used a custom-designed environment combined with eye-tracking to examine how action goal pursuit and visual strategies were adapted to deal with motor perturbations of varying predictability. Participants steered a spaceship, avoiding walls and obstacles while contending with random input noise and predictable horizontal drift. We found that changes in fixation distances to a reference point, the spaceship, indicated the type of action control employed. Input noise was associated with decreasing distances in fixations already close to the spaceship, addressing immediate demands for maintaining the spaceship's trajectory. In contrast, fixations allocated within the outer vicinity of the spaceship featured even longer distances in response to drift, suggesting visual exploration and proactive planning. That is, reactive strategies of action control were characterized by immediate responses to unpredictable disturbances, whereas proactive strategies reflected anticipatory adjustments to predictable changes. Furthermore, judgments about the own Sense of Control were closely tied to participants' ability to anticipate and adapt to environmental features. Invisible perturbations led to control loss and reduced task performance, but predictable perturbations allowed participants to maintain a high Sense of Control and still successfully solve the task. These results highlight how cognitive processes and sensorimotor control interact to navigate uncertain environments by flexibly balancing reactive and proactive strategies of action control.
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.