Previous saccades to other locations affect the programming of current antisaccade coordinates, but not those of prosaccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of the contextual effects of prior probability on saccades show latency changes when subjects make saccades to one of only two high-probability locations, compared to blocks with many locations. However, in this study we asked, does a second target location in the same block influence saccadic accuracy? We had subjects perform antisaccades in blocks containing two equally probable target locations, all at 8.5° eccentricity. In all blocks one target location was on the horizontal meridian. In half of the blocks, this was paired with a target above the meridian, while in the other half it was paired with a target below the meridian. We explored the effects of proximity by varying the directional angle of the second target from the horizontal meridian (20°, 40°, 60° or 80°) in different blocks. Last, we included two blocks of prosaccades, one with above- and one with below-meridian second targets with a directional angle of 20°. We analyzed the vertical and horizontal coordinates of saccadic endpoints to the horizontal-meridian target as a function of 1) the location (above or below the meridian) of the second target, and 2) the directional angle of the second saccadic goal. While prosaccades were not influenced by the location of the second target, antisaccades were significantly displaced towards the second target. This effect on antisaccades was greater the closer the second target was to the first target. These findings show that targets at other locations in prior trials can cause antisaccade goal coordinates to shift in the current trial. This new context effect can be modeled as the effects of summation between neural activity at current goal coordinates and reduced but persistent activity at the second location.
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) | 0.002 | 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".