ArticlePsychophysiology2026
Latent State-Trait and Latent Growth Curve Modeling of Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smooth pursuit eye movement (SPEM) performance has previously been shown to have good reliability. While quantifying the relative amounts of reliable trait and state influences on SPEM is relevant to different lines of research including individual differences, clinical and experimental research, this has not yet been done. Here, we apply latent state-trait (LST) theory to SPEM for the first time to examine reliability and to explicitly decompose trait and situational variance. SPEM tasks with sinusoidal and triangular movement patterns were performed by N = 163 healthy participants at three measurement occasions. LST and latent growth curve (LGC) modeling was used to calculate model-based reliability and to distinguish reliable trait variance (consistency) and variance due to influences of the situation and of the person × situation interaction (occasion specificity). We found mostly excellent reliabilities (0.86-0.98), except for the intra-individual standard deviation of root mean square error (RMSE) in both SPEM tasks where reliability was good (0.70-0.74). Consistencies and occasion specificities indicated that a higher proportion of variance was due to trait influences (62% on average) than due to situational influences (26% on average). There were mostly no changes on trait level over time. We conclude that SPEM performance is highly reliable and mainly reflects relatively stable trait components, but is also characterized by substantial state influences. Overall, these findings further support the use of SPEM in individual differences studies. However, potential state influences should be considered more explicitly in future studies examining SPEM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.