Control of volitional and reflexive saccades in Tourette's syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourette's syndrome is characterized by involuntary tics and, although the underlying pathogenesis and pathophysiology of Tourette's syndrome remains unclear, it is suspected that basal ganglia structures are involved. The basal ganglia also play an important role in the control of saccadic eye movements and we therefore hypothesize that Tourette's syndrome patients have abnormal control of saccadic eye movements. In this study, 10 subjects with Tourette's syndrome and 10 age- and sex-matched controls performed four different oculomotor paradigms requiring the execution and/or suppression of reflexive and/or voluntary saccades. In the immediate saccade tasks, subjects were required to look either toward (pro-saccade task) or away from (anti-saccade task) a peripheral target as soon as it appeared. In the delayed saccade tasks, subjects were instructed to wait for a central fixation point to disappear before initiating eye movements. Among Tourette's syndrome subjects, saccadic reaction times were longer in all tasks. Saccadic amplitudes were smaller in Tourette's syndrome subjects, and they made more saccades to reach the eccentric target. The occurrence of direction errors (i.e. reflexive pro-saccades on anti-saccade trials) was normal in the immediate anti-saccade task, suggesting that the ability to inhibit reflexive saccades towards novel stimuli was not impaired in Tourette's syndrome. Timing errors (i.e. eye movements made prior to disappearance of the central fixation point in delayed saccade tasks) were significantly greater among Tourette's syndrome subjects. Moreover, these errors were predominantly made towards the first target of the remembered sequence in a delayed memory-guided sequential saccade task. These results indicate that the ability to inhibit or delay planned motor programmes is significantly impaired in Tourette's syndrome. We hypothesize that altered cortical-basal ganglia circuitry leads to reduced cortical inhibition making it harder for Tourette's syndrome subjects to withhold the execution of planned motor programmes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".