Saccadic Adaptation in Visually Normal Individuals Using Saccadic Endpoint Variability From Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Saccadic adaptation is affected by the spatial variability of the adapting error signal. Recently, we have shown that saccadic adaptation is reduced in anisometropic amblyopia, possibly impacted by spatially imprecise saccades. Here, we tested this idea by quantifying the saccadic endpoint variability difference between people with anisometropic amblyopia and visually normal individuals. We then applied this difference to the second target step distribution during saccadic adaptation in visually normal people to test whether their performance diminished to a similar extent as participants with amblyopia. METHODS: Ten visually normal adults performed a double-step adaptation task (±19°, followed by 4° back-steps) with the nondominant eye under two conditions: "consistent error," using a constant back-step; and "variable error," using a variable (σdiff) back-step determined by subtracting the saccadic endpoint variability in controls from that in anisometropic amblyopia during amblyopic/nondominant eye viewing. Percentage change in saccadic gains, percentage retention, and adaptation time constants were analyzed. RESULTS: Percentage change in saccadic gains decreased significantly during the variable error condition (50% ± 10%) compared to the consistent error condition (69% ± 9%; P = 0.0008). Percentage retention and time constants did not differ between conditions. The adaptation magnitude during the variable error condition was comparable to the previous percentage adaptation in people with anisometropic amblyopia during the consistent error condition with amblyopic eye viewing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that adding exogenous spatial noise to the adapting step consistent with the saccadic endpoint variability difference between amblyopic and visually normal groups is sufficient to reduce saccadic adaptation in healthy individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".