Gain-increase saccadic adaptation is enhanced by the use of constant retinal error feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Saccadic accuracy is maintained by sensorimotor adaptive mechanisms that continually adjust movement gains when faced with consistent errors. It is known that generally the saccadic system is resistant to increasing its gain. This study investigates whether gain-increase saccadic adaptation can be improved by using a constant "retinal error" (RE) instead of the conventional "spatial error" (SE). Because adaptation is driven by the dynamic comparison of actual and predicted postsaccadic errors, we hypothesized that there would be an increased saccadic gain change in the RE compared to the SE condition. Methods: Eleven visually-normal observers performed two experimental sessions. Each session included three blocks: preadaptation, adaptation, and postadaptation during binocular viewing. In the control SE condition, the target appeared at ±10° followed by a 3° step in the same direction during the primary saccade. In the RE condition, the second step always appeared 3° away from the trial-by-trial real-time eye position after the primary saccade. Eye movements were tracked with the EyeLink II at 250 Hz. Percentage saccadic gain change and percentage gain retention from baseline were calculated. Results: All participants but one increased their saccadic gains substantially. Mean percentage gain change was higher in the RE (58±22%) compared to the SE (38±13%; p=0.01) condition. Adaptation retention was augmented in the RE condition for six out of ten participants, however the mean percentage retention was not statistically significant between conditions (RE=36±15%, SE=27±19%; p=0.26). Conclusions: This study provides a novel comparison of the constant retinal error and the conventional spatial error in driving gain-increase saccadic adaptation. The greater adaptation magnitude during the RE condition corroborates previous findings that a consistent disparity between the actual and predicted error plays a major role in driving saccadic adaptation. We intend to implement this enhanced technique in the future to study gain-increase saccadic adaptation in amblyopia. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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) | 0.002 | 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".