Catch-up saccades in head-unrestrained conditions reveal that saccade amplitude is corrected using an internal model of target movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes how human participants combine saccadic and pursuit gaze movements when they track an oscillating target moving along a randomly oriented straight line with the head free to move. We found that to track the moving target appropriately, participants triggered more saccades with increasing target oscillation frequency to compensate for imperfect tracking gains. Our sinusoidal paradigm allowed us to show that saccade amplitude was better correlated with internal estimates of position and velocity error at saccade onset than with those parameters 100 ms before saccade onset as head-restrained studies have shown. An analysis of saccadic onset time revealed that most of the saccades were triggered when the target was accelerating. Finally, we found that most saccades were triggered when small position errors were combined with large velocity errors at saccade onset. This could explain why saccade amplitude was better correlated with velocity error than with position error. Therefore, our results indicate that the triggering mechanism of head-unrestrained catch-up saccades combines position and velocity error at saccade onset to program and correct saccade amplitude rather than using sensory information 100 ms before saccade onset.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".