Smooth pursuit eye movement and schizotypy in the community.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in smooth pursuit eye movements are well documented in schizophrenia and schizotypic psychopathology. The status of eye tracking dysfunction (ETD) as an endophenotype for schizophrenia liability is relatively robust. However, the relation of ETD to schizophrenia-related deviance in the general population has not been confirmed. This study examined smooth pursuit eye tracking and schizotypal personality features in the general population. Smooth pursuit eye movement and schizotypal features were measured in 300 adult community subjects. The sample included both sexes, subjects with a wide age and educational range, and subjects with no prior history of psychosis. Primary outcome measures were peak gain (eye velocity/target velocity), catch-up saccade rate, and schizotypal feature scores. Total schizotypal features were significantly associated with decreased peak gain and were associated at the trend level with increased catch-up saccade rate. These associations were essentially unchanged after controlling for age, sex, and intellectual level effects. These data confirm a hypothesized association between schizotypal features and poorer eye tracking performance (principally, peak gain) in the general population as well as support the conceptualization of ETD as an endophenotype for schizophrenia liability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".