Eye movements shape visual learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most people easily learn to recognize new faces and places, and with more extensive practice they can become experts at visual tasks as complex as radiological diagnosis and action video games. Such perceptual plasticity has been thoroughly studied in the context of training paradigms that require constant fixation. In contrast, when observers learn under more natural conditions, they make frequent saccadic eye movements. Here we show that such eye movements can play an important role in visual learning. Observers performed a task in which they executed a saccade while discriminating the motion of a cued visual stimulus. Additional stimuli, presented simultaneously with the cued one, permitted an assessment of the perceptual integration of information across visual space. Consistent with previous results on perisaccadic remapping [M. Szinte, D. Jonikaitis, M. Rolfs, P. Cavanagh, H. Deubel, J. Neurophysiol. 116, 1592–1602 (2016)], most observers preferentially integrated information from locations representing the presaccadic and postsaccadic retinal positions of the cue. With extensive training on the saccade task, these observers gradually acquired the ability to perform similar motion integration without making eye movements. Importantly, the newly acquired pattern of spatial integration was determined by the metrics of the saccades made during training. These results suggest that oculomotor influences on visual processing, long thought to subserve the function of perceptual stability, also play a role in visual plasticity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".