June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Does Saccade Response Amplitude Gain Vary with the Amplitude of Target Demand?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Lynn D Greenspan
    Graduate Program in Biomedicine, Department of Optometry, Salus University, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Lynn Greenspan, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NONE
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 754. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lynn D Greenspan; Does Saccade Response Amplitude Gain Vary with the Amplitude of Target Demand?. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):754.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose : To assess the effect of saccade length on response accuracy as measured by %overshoot and %undershoot in normal controls and in concussed subjects. Studies report that it is common to undershoot larger saccades(200) and to overshoot smaller saccades(50). Is there a saccade length which maximizes response accuracy and minimizes position error? Understanding typical patterns of saccade response accuracy is beneficial when comparing normal controls to concussed subjects.

Methods : In accordance with human research subject protocol and as part of an IRB approved study, 5 control & 5 post-concussion subjects viewed 720 custom generated (VisualEyes software, VNEL, NJIT) Landolt-C targets in 5, 10, 15 & 200 horizontal pseudorandom pro-saccades (gap-0 paradigm) on a monitor @40cm with chin and head stabilization. A binocular infrared ISCAN eye tracker (Woburn, MA, USA) recorded saccades. MATLAB (MathWorks inc. Waltham,MA) and SPSS software(IBM inc. Armonk,NY) were used to analyze saccade data. Blinks, wrong turns, outliers, anticipatory and non-movements were excluded. Saccade response amplitude gain (SRAG) is calculated as +%overshoot or -%undershoot. Mean absolute% position error is compared between the 2 subject groups.

Results : Control subjects: 45% of the 50 saccades undershoot, 60% of the 100 saccades, 74% of the 150 saccades and 81% of the 200 saccades undershoot. Mean absolute% position error @50= 9.18%(range 4.46-13.17), @100= 6.3%(5.83-6.62), @150= 9.81%(3.37-17.73), and @200=11.08%(6.3-20.3).
Concussed subjects: 47.5% of the 50 saccades undershoot, 69% of the 100 saccades, 84% of the 150 saccades and 92% of the 200 saccades undershoot. Mean absolute% position error @50=3.36%(range 2.34-4.87), @100=10.05%(8.44-12.94), @150= 20.04%(17.89-24.08), and @200=26.23%(19.85-33.32).
Mean overall accuracy measures for controls=9.08% and concussed=14.9%. Significant internal variance exists.

Conclusions : Saccadic eye movement responses tend to undershoot the longer 200 demands at a greater frequency than the shorter 50 demands. Concussed subjects undershoot large saccade demands (200) at a higher rate than control subjects. Additionally, concussed subjects show greater %position error than normal control subjects. Low-midrange saccade lengths of near 100 yield maximum precision in SRAG with lower mean absolute %position error.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.