If you walk away..."eye" will follow: Saccadic endpoints shift in the direction of targets that are displaced during saccadic suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saccades are rapid, goal-directed, eye movements that typically last less than 140 ms. Due to the short duration of saccades, it is generally believed that they are entirely ballistic (pre-planned) and that information obtained throughout a saccade cannot be used to modify the trajectory of that saccade (e.g., Becker, 1991). Several recent findings, however, have called the ballistic nature of saccades into question. In one study, Gaveau et al. (2003) found that displacing visual targets during saccadic suppression can cause changes in saccadic endpoint. To investigate if feedback-based control contributed to the adjusted saccadic endpoints on these displaced target trials, we conducted detailed kinematic analyses of saccadic eye movements on trials without target displacement (reference trials), trials with target displacement (jump trials), and memory-based trials. Consistent with previous work, we found that the saccadic end-point was displaced in the direction of the target on jump trials. Although the kinematic analyses revealed several differences between the manner in which saccades on reference and memory trials were planned and executed, the analyses did not reveal any differences between the kinematics of saccades on jump and reference trials. Overall, these results support the hypothesis that saccades can be corrected online, but there was no evidence that there is an additional degree of online correction in jump trials relative to reference trials.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, and the Naitonal Science Foundation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".