MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2024619820 · doi:10.1167/12.9.999

 Pursuit eye movements and motion prediction in patients with schizophrenia

2012· article· en· W2024619820 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Spering, Elisa C. Dias, José-Luis Sánchez-Romero, Alexander C. Schütz, Daniel C. Javitt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmooth pursuitEye movementPerceptionEye trackingMotion perceptionFixation (population genetics)PsychologyComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Cognitive psychologyAudiologyComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GOAL: Tracking moving objects with smooth pursuit eye movements is essential for many everyday tasks. These continuous, slow eye rotations critically support vision by centering and stabilizing moving images on the fovea; they prevent motion blur and enhance visual acuity. We recently discovered a strong perceptual benefit during pursuit eye movements in a trajectory prediction task [Spering et al., J. Neurophysiol., 2011]. Here we investigate the ability to predict motion trajectories in patients with schizophrenia. Previous studies with these patients have established pronounced motion perception deficits and abnormalities in pursuit, most notably, in the velocity gain. METHOD: Observers (11 patients, 12 age-matched controls) judged whether a linearly moving target ("ball") would hit/miss a stationary vertical line segment ("goal"). Ball and goal were shown briefly (200 or 500ms) on a computer monitor and disappeared before the perceptual judgment was prompted. We manipulated eye movements: observers had to track the ball with their eyes (50% trials) or fixate on the goal while the ball was moving towards fixation. RESULTS: We found similarities in pursuit eye movement accuracy (i.e., velocity gain, direction error) between patients and controls. Moreover, both groups equally showed more accurate pursuit in trials with longer presentation duration. In contrast, perceptual motion prediction performance differed between groups: Across conditions, motion prediction was overall significantly better in controls than in patients (75 vs. 68% correct). Motion prediction was also significantly better when stimuli were presented longer than when presented shorter – but only for controls (78 vs. 72% correct); patients showed no such effect of presentation duration. Together, these findings indicate that motion prediction deficits in schizophrenic patients are not mediated by pursuit eye movements alone, suggesting differential impairments in early visual processing for motion perception and pursuit. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→