CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 656Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Age-related performance of human subjects on saccadic eye movement tasks

Munoz, D. P., Broughton, J. R., Goldring, J. E., Armstrong, I. T.·1998·Experimental Brain Research
DOI 10.1007/s002210050473
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We measured saccadic eye movements in 168 normal human subjects, ranging in age from 5 to 79 years, to determine age-related changes in saccadic task performance. Subjects were instructed to look either toward (pro-saccade task) or away from (anti-saccade task) an eccentric target under different conditions of fixation. We quantified the percentage of direction errors, the time to onset of the eye movement (saccadic reaction time: SRT), and the metrics and dynamics of the movement itself (amplitude, peak velocity, duration) for subjects in different age groups. Young children (5-8 years of age) had slow SRTs, great intra-subject variance in SRT, and the most direction errors in the anti-saccade task. Young adults (20-30 years of age) typically had the fastest SRTs and lowest intra-subject variance in SRT. Elderly subjects (60-79 years of age) had slower SRTs and longer duration saccades than other subject groups. These results demonstrate very strong age-related effects in subject performance, which may reflect different stages of normal development and degeneration in the nervous system. We attribute the dramatic improvement in performance in the anti-saccade task that occurs between the ages of 5-15 years to delayed maturation of the frontal lobes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s002210050473

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 48 references

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–656 of 656

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Munoz, D. P., Broughton, J. R., Goldring, J. E., & Armstrong, I. T.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
ORCID
Munoz, D. P.
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1998-08-10
Volume
121
Issue
4
Pages
391-400
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
DOI
10.1007/s002210050473
OpenAlex
W1992441758
Cited by
656
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 18
FWCI
5.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
saccades, aging, age-related changes, saccade latency, antisaccade task, saccade amplitude, saccade velocity, saccade duration, frontal lobe maturation, cognitive development, older adults, children
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aging, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Saccades

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review