Keep your eyes on the ball: smooth pursuit eye movements enhance prediction of visual motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Success of motor behavior often depends on the ability to predict the path of moving objects. Here we asked whether tracking a visual object with smooth pursuit eye movements helps to predict its motion direction. We developed a paradigm, "eye soccer," in which observers had to either track or fixate a visual target (ball) and judge whether it would have hit or missed a stationary vertical line segment (goal). Ball and goal were presented briefly for 100-500 ms and disappeared from the screen together before the perceptual judgment was prompted. In pursuit conditions, the ball moved towards the goal; in fixation conditions, the goal moved towards the stationary ball, resulting in similar retinal stimulation during pursuit and fixation. We also tested the condition in which the goal was fixated and the ball moved. Motion direction prediction was significantly better in pursuit than in fixation trials, regardless of whether ball or goal served as fixation target. In both fixation and pursuit trials, prediction performance was better when eye movements were accurate. Performance also increased with shorter ball-goal distance and longer presentation duration. A longer trajectory did not affect performance. During pursuit, an efference copy signal might provide additional motion information, leading to the advantage in motion prediction.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".