↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation of Saccadic Sequences with and without Remapping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adaptation of Saccadic Sequences with and without Remapping
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00359
Pubmed ID
Authors

Delphine Lévy-Bencheton, Aarlenne Zein Khan, Denis Pélisson, Caroline Tilikete, Laure Pisella

Abstract

It is relatively easy to adapt visually-guided saccades because the visual vector and the saccade vector match. The retinal error at the saccade landing position is compared to the prediction error, based on target location and efference copy. If these errors do not match, planning processes at the level(s) of the visual and/or motor vector processing are assumed to be inaccurate and the saccadic response is adjusted. In the case of a sequence of two saccades, the final error can be attributed to the last saccade vector or to the entire saccadic displacement. Here, we asked whether and how adaptation can occur in the case of remapped saccades, such as during the classic double-step saccade paradigm, where the visual and motor vectors of the second saccade do not coincide and so the attribution of error is ambiguous. Participants performed saccades sequences to two targets briefly presented prior to first saccade onset. The second saccade target was either briefly re-illuminated (sequential visually-guided task) or not (remapping task) upon first saccade offset. To drive adaptation, the second target was presented at a displaced location (backward or forward jump condition or control-no jump) at the end of the second saccade. Pre- and post-adaptation trials were identical, without the re-appearance of the target after the second saccade. For the 1st saccade endpoints, there was no change as a function of adaptation. For the 2nd saccade, there was a similar increase in gain in the forward jump condition (52% and 61% of target jump) in the two tasks, whereas the gain decrease in the backward condition was much smaller for the remapping task than for the sequential visually-guided task (41% vs. 94%). In other words, the absolute gain change was similar between backward and forward adaptation for remapped saccades. In conclusion, we show that remapped saccades can be adapted, suggesting that the error is attributed to the visuo-motor transformation of the remapped visual vector. The mechanisms by which adaptation takes place for remapped saccades may be similar to those of forward sequential visually-guided saccades, unlike those involved in adaptation for backward sequential visually-guided saccades.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 33%
Psychology 6 29%
Linguistics 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,396,610
of 24,512,028 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,673
of 7,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,613
of 371,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#114
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,512,028 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.