eLife Assessment: Coupling of saccade plans to endogenous attention during urgent choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural mechanisms that willfully direct attention to specific locations in space are closely related to those for generating targeting eye movements (saccades). However, the degree to which the voluntary deployment of attention to a location necessarily activates a corresponding saccade plan remains unclear. One problem is that attention and saccades are both automatically driven by salient sensory events; another is that the underlying processes unfold within tens of milliseconds only. Here, we use an urgent task design to resolve the evolution of a visuomotor choice on a moment-by-moment basis while independently controlling the endogenous (goal-driven) and exogenous (salience-driven) contributions to performance. Human participants saw a peripheral cue and, depending on its color, either looked at it (prosaccade) or looked at a diametrically opposite, uninformative non-cue (antisaccade). By varying the luminance of the stimuli, the exogenous contributions could be cleanly dissociated from the endogenous process guiding the choice over time. According to the measured timecourses, generating a correct antisaccade requires about 30 ms more processing time than generating a correct prosaccade based on the same perceptual signal. The results indicate that saccade plans elaborated during fixation are biased toward the location where attention is endogenously deployed, but the coupling is weak and can be willfully overridden very rapidly.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".