MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018975562 · doi:10.1152/jn.01171.2004

Countermanding Eye-Head Gaze Shifts in Humans: Marching Orders Are Delivered to the Head First

2005· article· en· W2018975562 on OpenAlexaff
Brian D. Corneil, James K. Elsley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGazeHead (geology)PsychologyCommunicationEye movementComputer scienceNeuroscienceComputer visionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The countermanding task requires subjects to cancel a planned movement on appearance of a stop signal, providing insights into response generation and suppression. Here, we studied human eye-head gaze shifts in a countermanding task with targets located beyond the horizontal oculomotor range. Consistent with head-restrained saccadic countermanding studies, the proportion of gaze shifts on stop trials increased the longer the stop signal was delayed after target presentation, and gaze shift stop-signal reaction times (SSRTs: a derived statistic measuring how long it takes to cancel a movement) averaged approximately 120 ms across seven subjects. We also observed a marked proportion of trials (13% of all stop trials) during which gaze remained stable but the head moved toward the target. Such head movements were more common at intermediate stop signal delays. We never observed the converse sequence wherein gaze moved while the head remained stable. SSRTs for head movements averaged approximately 190 ms or approximately 70-75 ms longer than gaze SSRTs. Although our findings are inconsistent with a single race to threshold as proposed for controlling saccadic eye movements, movement parameters on stop trials attested to interactions consistent with a race model architecture. To explain our data, we tested two extensions to the saccadic race model. The first assumed that gaze shifts and head movements are controlled by parallel but independent races. The second model assumed that gaze shifts and head movements are controlled by a single race, preceded by terminal ballistic intervals not under inhibitory control, and that the head-movement branch is activated at a lower threshold. Although simulations of both models produced acceptable fits to the empirical data, we favor the second alternative as it is more parsimonious with recent findings in the oculomotor system. Using the second model, estimates for gaze and head ballistic intervals were approximately 25 and 90 ms, respectively, consistent with the known physiology of the final motor paths. Further, the threshold of the head movement branch was estimated to be 85% of that required to activate gaze shifts. From these results, we conclude that a commitment to a head movement is made in advance of gaze shifts and that the comparative SSRT differences result primarily from biomechanical differences inherent to eye and head motion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207