Why are antisaccades slower than prosaccades? A novel finding using a new paradigm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye movements away from a new object (antisaccades) are slower than towards it (prosaccades). This finding is assumed to reflect the fact that prosaccades to new objects are made reflexively, and that for antisaccades, reflexive eye movements have to be inhibited and antisaccades are generated volitionally. Experiment 1 investigated the relative contribution of saccade inhibition by comparing the latency difference between pro- and antisaccades obtained in the traditional blocked paradigm and in a new paradigm in which oculomotor inhibition across pro- and antisaccades was matched. When inhibition was placed on the oculomotor system, the latency difference between pro- and antisaccades was significantly reduced. Experiment 2 examined the contribution of volitional saccade programming and execution by requiring both pro- and antisaccades to be programmed volitionally. This manipulation did not decrease further the difference between pro- and antisaccades. It is thus concluded that oculomotor inhibition is the main factor leading to long antisaccade latency. The remaining difference is attributed to the reallocation of covert attention from the target location towards the opposite antisaccade location.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it