4.6 Article

Horizontal and vertical eye movement metrics: What is important?

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 124, 期 11, 页码 2216-2229

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.05.002

关键词

Eye movements; Normative data; Eye tracking; Prosaccades; Antisaccades; Smooth pursuit; Skewness

资金

  1. Czech Ministry of Health [NT/12288-5/2011]
  2. Grant Agency of Charles University in Prague [UK 441611]
  3. Czech Ministry of Education [MSM0021620849]
  4. Czech Science Foundation [GACR 102/12/2230]
  5. Czech Technical University in Prague [SGS10/279/OHK3/3T/13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assist other eye movement investigators in the design and analysis of their studies. Methods: We examined basic saccadic eye movements and smooth pursuit in the horizontal and vertical directions with video-oculography in a group of 145 healthy subjects between 19 and 82 years of age. Results: Gender and education level did not influence eye movement metrics. With age, the latency of leftward and vertical pro-and antisaccades increased (p < 0.001), velocity of upward prosaccades decreased (p < 0.001), gain of rightward and upward prosaccades diminished (p < 0.001), and the error rate of antisaccades increased (p < 0.001). Prosaccades and antisaccades were influenced by the direction of the target, resulting in a right/left and up/down asymmetry. The skewness of the saccade velocity profile was stable throughout the lifespan, and within the range of saccades analyzed in the present study, correlated with amplitude and duration only for antisaccades (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Some eye movement metrics must be separated by the direction of movement, others according to subject age, while others may be pooled. Significance: This study provides important information for new oculomotor laboratories concerning the constitution of subject groups and the analysis of eye movement metrics. (C) 2013 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据