Error Correcting Mechanisms during Antisaccades: Contribution of Online Control during Primary Saccades and Offline Control via Secondary Saccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Errors in eye movements can be corrected during the ongoing saccade through in-flight modifications (i.e., online control), or by programming a secondary eye movement (i.e., offline control). In a reflexive saccade task, the oculomotor system can use extraretinal information (i.e., efference copy) online to correct errors in the primary saccade, and offline retinal information to generate a secondary corrective saccade. The purpose of this study was to examine the error correction mechanisms in the antisaccade task. The roles of extraretinal and retinal feedback in maintaining eye movement accuracy were investigated by presenting visual feedback at the spatial goal of the antisaccade. We found that online control for antisaccade is not affected by the presence of visual feedback; that is whether visual feedback is present or not, the duration of the deceleration interval was extended and significantly correlated with reduced antisaccade endpoint error. We postulate that the extended duration of deceleration is a feature of online control during volitional saccades to improve their endpoint accuracy. We found that secondary saccades were generated more frequently in the antisaccade task compared to the reflexive saccade task. Furthermore, we found evidence for a greater contribution from extraretinal sources of feedback in programming the secondary "corrective" saccades in the antisaccade task. Nonetheless, secondary saccades were more corrective for the remaining antisaccade amplitude error in the presence of visual feedback of the target. Taken together, our results reveal a distinctive online error control strategy through an extension of the deceleration interval in the antisaccade task. Target feedback does not improve online control, rather it improves the accuracy of secondary saccades in the antisaccade task.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".