Neural Correlates of Predictive Saccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every day we generate motor responses that are timed with external cues. This phenomenon of sensorimotor synchronization has been simplified and studied extensively using finger tapping sequences that are executed in synchrony with auditory stimuli. The predictive saccade paradigm closely resembles the finger tapping task. In this paradigm, participants follow a visual target that "steps" between two fixed locations on a visual screen at predictable ISIs. Eventually, the time from target appearance to saccade initiation (i.e., saccadic RT) becomes predictive with values nearing 0 msec. Unlike the finger tapping literature, neural control of predictive behavior described within the eye movement literature has not been well established and is inconsistent, especially between neuroimaging and patient lesion studies. To resolve these discrepancies, we used fMRI to investigate the neural correlates of predictive saccades by contrasting brain areas involved with behavior generated from the predictive saccade task with behavior generated from a reactive saccade task (saccades are generated toward targets that are unpredictably timed). We observed striking differences in neural recruitment between reactive and predictive conditions: Reactive saccades recruited oculomotor structures, as predicted, whereas predictive saccades recruited brain structures that support timing in motor responses, such as the crus I of the cerebellum, and structures commonly associated with the default mode network. Therefore, our results were more consistent with those found in the finger tapping literature.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".