MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2088237302 · doi:10.1167/2.7.175

Pre-saccade target color influences the perception of its post-saccade counterpart

2010· article· en· W2088237302 on OpenAlexaff
Ziad M. Hafed, James J. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadeFixation (population genetics)AudiologyPerceptionPsychologySquare (algebra)Object (grammar)CommunicationEye movementMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineNeuroscienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a saccade is generated towards an object in space, the representation of this object's spatial location in the brain is updated in anticipation of saccade end. We investigated whether a similar updating occurs for the object's features as well. We designed a psychophysical task in which subjects looked at a central square that disappeared 200 msec after trial onset. After a gap of 200 msec, a peripheral square appeared 17 degrees to the right or left of fixation. Subjects were instructed to saccade to this square and report whether it had the same color as the central square or not. The peripheral square was extinguished 50–150 msec after saccade detection, which happened midway through saccades. A saccade-contingent change in the color of the peripheral square occurred in approximately 50% of the trials. In particular, we had four possible color variations, described by the acronyms: XXX, XYY, XYX, and XXY. In XYX trials, the central square had a color X (first letter in the acronym), the pre-saccade color of the peripheral square was Y (second letter), and the post-saccade color of the peripheral square was X (third letter). The remaining acronyms described square colors in a similar fashion. X was red, yellow, green, or blue, and for each X, the color Y was chosen such that subjects detected a color difference in approximately 70% of all XYY trials. We found that there were significantly more “SAME” responses in XXY trials than in XYY trials, and the effect was strongest approximately 50 msec after saccade end, after which it decayed. The effect was much weaker in XYX trials (subject performance was similar to that in XXX trials) perhaps because of priming of the color X as a result of task requirements. We hypothesize that saccade target properties are enhanced in anticipation of the retinal consequences of a saccadic eye movement and that this effect mirrors dynamic remapping of spatial location in areas such as the lateral intraparietal area (LIP).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→