AB055. Eye movements in the dark: saccades to non-visual targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Saccades are rapid and abrupt eye movements that allow us to change the point of fixation very quickly. Saccades are generally made to visual points of interest, but we can also saccade to non-visual objects that attract our attention. While there is a plethora of studies investigating saccadic eye movements to visual targets, there is very little evidence of how eye movement planning occurs when individuals are performing eye movements to non-visual targets across different sensory modalities. Methods: Fifteen adults with normal, or corrected to normal, vision made saccades to either visual, auditory, tactile or proprioceptive targets. In the auditory condition a speaker was positioned at one of eight locations along a circle surrounding a central fixation point. In the proprioceptive condition the participant’s finger was placed at one of the eight locations. In the tactile condition participants were touched on their right forearm in one of four eccentric location, left and right of a central point. Eye movements were made in complete darkness. Results: We compared the precision and accuracy of the eye movements to tactile, proprioceptive, and auditory targets in the dark. Overall, both precision and accuracy of movements to non-visual targets were significantly lower compared to visual targets. Conclusions: These differences emphasize the central role of the visual system in saccade planning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".