ArticleJournal of vision2026
Saccades to spatially extended objects: The roles of observer goals and part-structure cues in determining within-object landing position.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How is the perceptual representation of a spatially extended object translated into a discrete saccade vector? A wealth of evidence suggests that the object center of area (COA) is computed as a default index. However, saccades are also sensitive to the location of task-relevant information, which does not always appear at the COA. In addition, task-relevant object regions often correspond to discrete object parts. Here, we manipulated part-structure cues and participant goals to examine their potential interaction in controlling within-object landing position. In Experiment 1, participants executed saccades to spatially extended objects in a visual search task. Within-object landing position was systematically influenced by both factors: (1) a bias toward locations known to contain task-relevant information, and (2) a bias toward regions of part segmentation. A rapid orienting task to a single, abruptly appearing object (Experiment 2) showed only the latter bias, suggesting that unlike the strategic bias, the segmentation bias was driven primarily by physical stimulus properties. Finally, the two biases combined, such that the largest effect of strategy was observed when the relevant location coincided with a discrete object part. Together, the results indicate that saccade target selection was controlled by the combined effect of goal-directed processes, segmentation, and a default bias toward the COA.
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.