MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018983045 · doi:10.1167/14.10.97

The latencies of prosaccades are prolonged by both executed and planned (but not executed) prior antisaccades

2014· article· en· W2018983045 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia N. Yeung, Cristina Rubino, Jayalakshmi Viswanathan, Jason J.S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntisaccade taskEye movementPsychologySaccadeCued speechAudiologySaccadic eye movementMedicineDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies that mix trials with prosaccades and antisaccades have shown that there are carry-over effects between one trial and the next. In particular, a preceding antisaccade leads to increased latencies of the following response, particularly if it is a prosaccade. Whether this antisaccade effect results from effects generated in the execution of the antisaccade or possibly in the planning and preparation process is unknown. Objective: We studied whether prolongation of the latencies of subsequent prosaccades after antisaccade trials depended upon execution of the antisaccade or occurred regardless of whether the antisaccade was actually performed. Methods: 9 subjects were tested using blocks of randomly ordered prosaccades and antisaccades. An instructional cue at fixation indicated whether a prosaccade or antisaccade was required when the target appeared 2 seconds later. On 20% of the antisaccade trials, the target did not actually appear (antisaccade cue/no-target trials). We analysed the latencies of all correct prosaccades or antisaccades that were preceded by correctly executed trials. Results: As expected the latencies of prosaccade trials preceded by prosaccades were 20ms shorter (mean 189ms) than the latencies of prosaccade trials preceded by antisaccades (mean 209ms). Prosaccades preceded by trials where antisaccades were cued but not executed because the target did not appear also showed prolonged latencies (mean 214ms). These differed from the latencies of trials with preceding prosaccades but not from those of trials with preceding antisaccades. Conclusion: The effects of a prior antisaccade in prolonging the latencies of subsequent saccades is generated by the planning of the antisaccade. This may reflect persistence of the known pre-target preparatory activity seen in neural recordings of the superior colliculus and frontal eye field. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0060.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207