Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42252306›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Path integration from optic flow and the role of eye movements.

Renate Reisenegger, Frank Bremmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Renate ReiseneggerApplied Physics and Neurophysics, University of Marburg, Karl-v-Frisch Str 8a, 35043, Marburg, Germany. renate.reisenegger@physik.uni-marburg.de.
Frank BremmerApplied Physics and Neurophysics, University of Marburg, Karl-v-Frisch Str 8a, 35043, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Eye MovementsMotion PerceptionOptic FlowAdultFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMalePhotic StimulationSaccadesYoung AdultDistance perceptionEye movementsFixationOptic flowPath integrationSelf-motion

Identifiers

PMID42252306
PMCPMC13243615

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.