An Electrooculographic Method for the Evaluation of Psychotropic Drugs on Saccadic Eye Movements in Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recording of saccadic eye movements has proved to be a valuable tool for investigation of brain function anddysfunction and is very sensitive to centrally acting drugs. Since there is a lack of agreement concerningvelocity–amplitude characteristics of saccadic eye movements, the present study obtained saccadic eyemovements from 24 healthy subjects using indigenously developed electro-oculographic recording and analysissystem in forward and countdown sequence. The validity of the system was further tested by evaluating thepsychotropic effects of 5mg zolpidem and 500mg caffeine in randomized, double blind, placebo controlled threeway cross over design on 24 healthy subjects. Saccadic eye movements were measured at baseline and 1, 2 and 3hrs after administration of study medication. Mean (±SD) values for peak saccadic velocity (PSV) over saccadesof ±10, ±20, ±30, ±40, ±50 & ±60 degrees were in agreement with those previously reported. Zolpidemproduced statistically significant decrease in PSV compared to placebo at all the angular displacements at 1 & 2hrs. In contrast, caffeine produced non-significant increase in PSV at all angular displacements at 1hr. Similarlylatency period (LP) increased with zolpidem and decreased with caffeine compared to placebo. Theelectro-oculographic recording and analysis system is simple, sensitive to centrally acting drug effects andtherefore has potential for future experimental psychomotor assessment studies.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".