Spatiotemporal competition resolution during anti-saccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-saccade are eye movements directed in the opposite direction of a visual target. Because the visual target and the saccade goal are decoupled, it has been suggested that the competition between those two locations need to be resolved for the execution of a correct anti-saccade. However, it remains unclear how this competition is resolved temporally and spatially. To examine how anti-saccade metrics reflect competition across time and space, we tested 14 participants on a pro-saccade paradigm as well as three different spatial configurations of anti-saccades: 90° away across hemifields, 90° away within the same hemifield, and 180° away with different target eccentricities (4, 5.5 and 7 degrees). We measured anti-saccade metrics including error rates, amplitudes and saccade endpoints and reaction times. We observed a dynamic reduction of error rates as a function of saccade reaction times. Moreover, compared to pro-saccade endpoints, we found a spatial bias toward the visual target in the endpoints of anti-saccades across all anti-saccade paradigms. This bias was specific to the vector inversion direction of each anti-saccade paradigm. Further, the magnitude of the bias was modulated by the different eccentricities tested. Taken together, these results show evidence for competition between the visual target and saccade goal location that varies dynamically across time and space during anti-saccades.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".