Behavioral Evidence of Separate Adaptation Mechanisms Controlling Saccade Amplitude Lengthening and Shortening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of saccadic eye movements is maintained over the long term by adaptation mechanisms that decrease or increase saccade amplitude. It is still unknown whether these opposite adaptive changes rely on common mechanisms. Here, a double-step target paradigm was used to adaptively decrease (backward second target step) or increase (forward step) the amplitude of reactive saccades in one direction only. To test which sensorimotor transformation stages are subjected to these adaptive changes, we measured their transfer to antisaccades in which sensory and motor vectors are spatially dissociated. In the backward adaptation condition, all subjects showed a significant amplitude decrease for adapted prosaccades and a significant transfer of adaptation to antisaccades performed in the adapted direction, but not to oppositely directed antisaccades elicited by a target jump in the adapted direction. In the forward adaptation condition, only 14 of 19 subjects showed a significant amplitude increase for prosaccades and no significant adaptation transfer to antisaccades was detected in either the adapted or nonadapted direction. These findings suggest that, whereas the level(s) of forward adaptation cannot be resolved, the mechanisms involved in backward adaptation of reactive saccades take place at a sensorimotor level downstream from the vector inversion process of antisaccades and differ markedly from those involved in forward adaptation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".