Gaze Control in Children with High Versus Low Motor Proficiency

  • Claudia Emes
  • Joan Vickers
  • Lori Livingston
Conference paper


Gaze control was compared between children demonstrating high vs low motor proficiency on the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Gaze during the response speed task, which measures reaction to a moving visual stimulus, was observed. Eye events were coded just prior, during, and after the release of the stick in the response speed task. A set of six gazes across seven trials of the task was recorded for all subjects. Low proficiency children were slower to respond to the falling stick than the high proficiency group. High performers tended to use a higher percentage of fixations across all trials. Most noticeble were differences between the groups at the moment of release. For high performers, fixations tended to be much longer, indicating the use of a steady gaze through to the final clamping motion of the thumb on the stick. Additionally, the location of gaze at the moment of release differed noticeably. High performers sustained their gaze on the stick while the low performers were as likely to focus on the stick, off the stick or at their own thumb. This study describes the role of gaze in the performance of tasks requiring a quick response to visual stimuli. The results suggest that differences between between proficient and clumsy motor responses in children may be associated with gaze control.


Visual Stimulus Response Speed High Performer Saccadic Reaction Time Motor Proficiency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Olson RK, Kliegl R, Davidson BJ (1983) Eye movements in reading disabilities. In: Rayner K (ed) Eye movements in reading: perceptual and language processes. Academic, London, pp 467–479Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rayner K (1983) The perceptual span and eye movement control during reading. (pp 97–120) In: Rayner K (ed) Eye movements in reading: perceptual and language processes. Academic, London, pp 467–479Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer B, Weber H (1990) Saccadic reaction times of dyslexic and age matched normal subjects. Perception 19:805–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raymond JE, Ogden, Fagan NA, Kaplan BJ (1988) Fixational instability and saccadic eye movements of dyslexic children with subtle cerebellar dysfunction. Am J Optom Physiol Optics 3:174–181Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones A, Stark L (1983) Abnormal patterns of normal eye movements in specific dyslexia. In: Rayner K (ed) Eye movements in reading: perceptual and language processes. Academic, London, pp 491–498Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pavlidis GT (1981) Sequencing, eye movements and the early objective diagnosis of dyslexia. In: Pavlidis GT, Miles TR (eds) Dyslexia research and its application to education. Wiley, London, pp 99–163Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmid R, Zambarbieri D (1991) Strategies of eye-hand coordination. In: Schmid R, Zambarbieri D (eds) Oculomotor control and cognitive processes. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 229–248Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zangemeister WH, Stark L (1982) Gaze latency: Variable interaction of head and eye latency. Exp Neurol 75:217–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guitton D, Volle M (1987) Gaze control in humans: eye-head coordination during orienting movements to targets within and beyond the oculomotor range. J Neurophysiol 58:427–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Optican LM (1985) Adaptive properties of the saccadic system. In: Berthoz A, Jones M (eds) Adaptive mechanisms in gaze control: facts and theories. Elsevier, New York, pp 71–79Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer B (1987) The preparation of visually guided saccades. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol 106:2–35Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hattie J, Edwards H (1987) A review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Br J Educ Psychol 57:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruininks RH (1978) Test of motor proficiency manual. American Guidance Service, Circle PinesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Dellen T, Geuze RH (1988) Motor response processing in clumsy children. J Child Psych 29:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith TR, Glencross DJ (1986) Information processing deficits in clumsy children. Aust J Psych 38:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Emes
  • Joan Vickers
  • Lori Livingston

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations