To Look or Not to Look? Typical and Atypical Development of Oculomotor Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to inhibit saccades toward suddenly appearing peripheral stimuli (prosaccades) and direct them to contralateral locations instead (antisaccades) is a crucial marker of eye movement control. Typically developing infants as young as 4-month-olds can learn to inhibit reflexive saccades to peripheral stimuli, but they do not produce antisaccades, whose development later in infancy and its underlying neural computations remain unexplored. Here we tested oculomotor control in typically developing toddlers and toddlers with fragile X syndrome (FXS), a disorder of known genetic origin that allows the investigation of the neuro-computational properties contributing to the development of saccadic control. Typically developing toddlers decreased looking toward peripheral cues that predicted contralateral rewards, whose appearance they anticipated. Furthermore, this correlated with age, indicating a gradual development of saccadic control. In contrast with the typical case, toddlers with FXS did not decrease their looks to peripheral onsets that predicted contralateral events. Importantly, the atypical pattern of performance was also evident in the elimination of the correlation with mental or chronological age found in controls. Taken together, the findings suggest that control of saccades and its developmental trajectory is atypical in toddlers with FXS, consistent with inhibitory deficits previously shown at later ages in this condition. Potential implications for the neural mechanisms underlying the typical and atypical development of oculomotor control are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".