ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2026
Normative Values for Prosaccade and Antisaccade Eye Movements in Adolescents Using a New Saccadometry Test.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Saccadic eye movements (SEMs) are rapid, precise movements that reorient the visual fovea toward an object of interest. In clinical practice, assessing SEMs can help in differentiating and monitoring various neurologic, otoneurologic, and psychiatric conditions. Deviations from adequate saccadic patterns offer critical diagnostic information, enabling clinicians to more accurately identify related conditions such as schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, and cognitive impairment in vestibular migraine, among others. Purpose: Establish normative data for prosaccades (PSs) and antisaccades (ASs) in healthy adolescents aged 12-17 years. Research Design: A cross-sectional, single-center study conducted between June and December 2023. Study Sample: Data were reported on 138 healthy participants aged 12 to 17 years with no history of head trauma, neurologic, vestibular, behavioral, or psychiatric disorders, and use of medications affecting SEMs. Results: This study included 138 participants (mean age, 14.5 years; 44.2 percent female). A mean accuracy, latency, velocity, and directional error (DE) of 91.5 percent, 211 milliseconds (ms), 249.5 degrees per second (°/s), and 0.8 percent in PSs and 117.0 percent, 304.7 ms, 249.8°/s, and 11.8 percent for ASs were obtained, respectively. Significant reductions were found in horizontal random saccade velocity (p = 0.027), PS velocity (p = 0.001), AS latency (p < 0.001), and DE (p < 0.001) from younger to older adolescents. With age maturation, ASs' latency and DE showed a significant reduction. Compared with females, male participants have lower AS latencies (p < 0.041). Younger males (<15 years) have higher PS velocities (p = 0.02). Young females and males have higher latencies (p = 0.031 and p < 0.01, respectively) and DE (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively) than the older participants (≥15 years) in ASs. Conclusions: This study established normative data for PSs and ASs for individuals aged 12-17 years using commercially available equipment. The findings indicate age-related variations, particularly in AS latency and DE. Clinical Relevance Statement: The normative values obtained in this study could assist clinicians in the detection of cognitive control impairment or oculomotor dysfunction, and support complementary diagnostic tools in differentiating neurologic, vestibular, behavioral, or psychiatric disorders affecting adolescents.
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.