Comparison of Memory- and Visually Guided Saccades Using Event-Related fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous functional imaging studies have shown an increased hemodynamic signal in several cortical areas when subjects perform memory-guided saccades than that when they perform visually guided saccades using blocked trial designs. It is unknown, however, whether this difference results from sensory processes associated with stimulus presentation, from processes occurring during the delay period before saccade generation, or from an increased motor signal for memory-guided saccades. We conducted fMRI using an event-related paradigm that separated stimulus-related, delay-related, and saccade-related activity. Subjects initially fixated a central cross, whose color indicated whether the trial was a memory- or a visually guided trial. A peripheral stimulus was then flashed at one of 4 possible locations. On memory-guided trials, subjects had to remember this location for the subsequent saccade, whereas the stimulus was a distractor on visually guided trials. Fixation cross disappearance after a delay period was the signal either to generate a memory-guided saccade or to look at a visual stimulus that was flashed on visually guided trials. We found slightly greater stimulus-related activation for visually guided trials in 3 right prefrontal regions and right rostral intraparietal sulcus (IPS). Memory-guided trials evoked greater delay-related activity in right posterior inferior frontal gyrus, right medial frontal eye field, bilateral supplementary eye field, right rostral IPS, and right ventral IPS but not in middle frontal gyrus. Right precentral gyrus and right rostral IPS exhibited greater saccade-related activation on memory-guided trials. We conclude that activation differences revealed by previous blocked experiments have different sources in different areas and that cortical saccade regions exhibit delay-related activation differences.
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".