Pro- and Antisaccades: Dissociating Stimulus and Response Influences the Online Control of Saccade Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined whether the diminished online control of antisaccades is related to a trade-off between movement planning and control or the remapping of target properties to a mirror-symmetrical location (i.e., vector inversion). Pro- and antisaccades were examined in a standard no-delay schedule wherein target onset served as the movement imperative and a delay cuing schedule wherein responses were initiated 2,000 ms following target onset. Importantly, the delay cuing schedule was employed to equate pro- and antisaccade reaction times. Online control was evaluated by indexing the strength of trajectory amendments at normalized increments of movement time. Antisaccades exhibited fewer online corrections than prosaccades, and this result was consistent across cuing schedules. Thus, the diminished online control of antisaccades cannot be tied to a trade-off between movement planning and control. Rather, the authors propose that the intentional nature of dissociating stimulus and response (i.e., vector inversion) engenders a slow mode of cognitive control that is not optimized for fast oculomotor corrections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".