Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41568148›Full record

ArticleiScience2026

Proximal procrastination of saccades: "paradoxical" delays to larger objects explained by a simple payoff-time heuristic.

Mark R Harwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Mark R HarwoodDepartment of Biology, City College of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our most common decision is rife with procrastination: saccade latencies are typically 2-5x minimum sensorimotor pathway delays. Procrastination is explained as time to accumulate sensory evidence for target selection. Larger targets, or those nearer the fovea, have larger cortical representation and salience, and thus should elicit faster targeting. Paradoxically, the opposite is true. We present the largest parametric effect on saccade preparation timing in simple objects (>100 ms). Proximal or larger targets were systematically delayed, with relative eccentricity explaining 88% of latency variance. A payoff-time model pitting information gained from peripheral preview against that from foveation explained both object-sized and foveal microsaccade latency peaks. Free choices between proximal (high salience-by-proximity) and distal (high motor-priority) targets found priority dominating. Collectively, these results unite disparate findings in oculomotor literature around a proximal procrastination rule. The extraordinary structure and strength of the latency data, coupled with naturalistic saccades being object-targeted, imply wide scientific and, potentially, applied importance.

Indexed as

Cognitive neuroscienceLife Sciences

Identifiers

PMID41568148
PMCPMC12818311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.