Eye movements as a readout of sensorimotor decision processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-world tasks, such as avoiding obstacles, require a sequence of interdependent choices to reach accurate motor actions. Yet, most studies on primate decision making involve simple one-step choices. Here we analyze motor actions to investigate how sensorimotor decisions develop over time. In a go/no-go interception task human observers ( n = 42) judged whether a briefly presented moving target would pass (interceptive hand movement required) or miss (no hand movement required) a strike box while their eye and hand movements were recorded. Go/no-go decision formation had to occur within the first few hundred milliseconds to allow time-critical interception. We found that the earliest time point at which eye movements started to differentiate actions (go versus no-go) preceded hand movement onset. Moreover, eye movements were related to different stages of decision making. Whereas higher eye velocity during smooth pursuit initiation was related to more accurate interception decisions (whether or not to act), faster pursuit maintenance was associated with more accurate timing decisions (when to act). These results indicate that pursuit initiation and maintenance are continuously linked to ongoing sensorimotor decision formation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Here we show that eye movements are a continuous indicator of decision processes underlying go/no-go actions. We link different stages of decision formation to distinct oculomotor events during open- and closed-loop smooth pursuit. Critically, the earliest time point at which eye movements differentiate actions preceded hand movement onset, suggesting shared sensorimotor processing for eye and hand movements. These results emphasize the potential of studying eye movements as a readout of cognitive processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".