ArticleScientific reports2026
Path integration from optic flow and the role of eye movements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optic flow provides critical visual information for self-motion perception, including direction (heading), speed, and travel distance (path integration). While eye movements are naturally elicited during optic flow, most lab-based studies of human path integration require central fixation, potentially altering perception. Here, we examined whether free eye movements improve distance discrimination compared with fixation, testing the hypothesis that oculomotor signals may support oculomotor odometry. The participants viewed two consecutive optic flow stimuli simulating forward self-motion across a ground plane and judged which interval represented the longer travel distance. Eye movement instructions varied across the four conditions, allowing either free-viewing or requiring fixation (still allowing for miniature slow and fast eye movements within a control window) during each interval. Behavioral accuracy was analyzed with generalized linear mixed-effects models, and eye movements were quantified either including or excluding saccades. As expected, free-viewing induced larger and faster saccades and higher smooth eye-movement speeds than fixation did. However, contrary to our hypothesis, fixation did not systematically impair distance discrimination. While cumulative eye-movement amplitudes scaled with travel distance as predicted, psychometric functions for perceived distance were similar across conditions. These findings, together with results from other recent studies, suggest that fixation-based paradigms do not impair the study of certain aspects of self-motion perception, including settings requiring stable gaze (e.g., EEG recordings).
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.