Trial reportExperimental brain research1996
Bilateral interactions in saccade programming. A saccade-latency study.
Trial report in Experimental brain research, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of auditory and visual distractors on human orienting gaze shifts.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 1996Article
- Fixation and saccade control in an express-saccade maker.Experimental brain research · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjects were required to make a saccade to a target appearing randomly 4 degree to the left or right of the current fixation position (1280 trials per experiment). Location cues were used to direct visual attention and start saccade preparation to one of the two locations before target onset. When the cue indicated the target location (valid trials), the generation of express saccades (visually guided saccades with latencies around 100 ms) was strongly facilitated. When the opposite location was cued (invalid trials), express saccades were abolished and replaced by a population of mainly fast-regular saccades (latencies around 150 ms). This was found with a peripheral cue independently of whether the fixation point was removed before target onset (gap condition; experiment 1) or remained on throughout the trial (overlap condition; experiment 2). The same pattern also was observed with a central cue that did not involve any visual stimulation at a peripheral location (experiment 3). In the case where the primary saccade was executed in response to the cue and the target appeared at the opposite location, continuous amplitude transition functions were observed: starting at about 60-70 ms from target onset onward, the amplitude of the cue-elicited saccades continuously decreased from 4 degree to values below 1 degree. The results are explained by a fixation-gating model, according to which the antagonism between fixation and saccade activity gives rise to multimodal distributions of saccade latencies. It is argued that allocation of visual attention and saccade preparation to one location entails a successive disengagement of the fixation system controlling saccade preparation within the hemifield to which the saccade is prepared and a partial engagement of the opposite fixation system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8738379What 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.