Exploring oculomotor functions in a pilot study with healthy controls: Insights from eye-tracking and fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye-tracking techniques have gained widespread application in various fields including research on the visual system, neurosciences, psychology, and human-computer interaction, with emerging clinical implications. In this preliminary phase of our study, we introduce a pilot test of innovative virtual reality technology designed for tracking head and eye movements among healthy individuals. This tool was developed to assess the presence of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), given the frequent association of oculomotor function deficits with such injuries. Alongside eye-tracking, we also integrated fMRI due to the complementary nature of these techniques, offering insights into both neural activation patterns and behavioural responses, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of oculomotor function. We used fMRI with tasks evaluating oculomotor functions: Smooth Pursuit (SP), Saccades, Anti-Saccades, and Optokinetic Nystagmus (OKN). Prior to the scanning, the testing with a system of VR goggles with integrated eye and head tracking was used where subjects performed the same tasks as those used in fMRI. 31 healthy adult controls (HCs) were tested with the purpose of identifying brain regions associated with these tasks and collecting preliminary norms for later comparison with concussed subjects. HCs' fMRI results showed following peak activation regions: SP-cuneus, superior parietal lobule, paracentral lobule, inferior parietal lobule (IPL), cerebellartonsil (CT); Saccades-middle frontal gyrus (MFG), postcentral gyrus, medial frontal gyrus; Anti-saccades-precuneus, IPL, MFG; OKN-middle temporal gyrus, ACC, postcentral gyrus, MFG, CT. These results demonstrated brain regions associated with the performance on oculomotor tasks in healthy controls and most of the highlighted areas are corresponding with those affected in concussion. This suggests that the involvement of brain areas susceptible to mTBI in implementing oculomotor evaluation, taken together with commonly reported oculomotor difficulties post-concussion, may lead to finding objective biomarkers using eye-tracking tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".