# Same image, a different eye jump

For curious readers and science communicators, choose a jump and a probe to see which kind of signal is favoured. A 30 August 2026 Nature Communications paper separates the measured human result from an explanatory diagram, not a clinical self-test.

![Original diagram: the same stimulus band passes through three eye jumps](https://mariuscomper.uk/saltul-ochiului/assets/og-en.png)

## The short answer

For the low probe at 0.1 cycles per degree, 6° versus 1° meant 37% higher sensitivity, t(8) = 9.097, p < 0.001, d = 0.98. For the high probe at 2.5 cycles per degree, the 6° versus 1° comparison showed no difference, t(7) = −0.066, p = 0.949.

## What you can change in the schematic

On the HTML page, switch between 0.4°, 1°, and 6° jumps and between the 0.1 and 2.5 cycles-per-degree probes. The model uses a deterministic conceptual index from 0 to 100:

- for the low probe, `coarse = round(clamp(44 + 24 × log2(1 + amplitude), 0, 100))`;
- for the high probe, `coarse = round(clamp(30 + 18 × (1 − exp(−amplitude / 0.8)), 0, 100))`;
- `fine = 100 − coarse`.

This schematic is not participant data, a screen measurement, or a calibrated reproduction.

## What the researchers measured

The psychophysical experiments use 9 unique participants. The main 1°–6° comparison has N = 9 for Low-Probe, while the three-amplitude experiment has N = 6, including three new participants. Datasets used separately for natural eye-movement analysis are not added to form one experimental N.

For the High-Probe, 0.4° was better than 1° and 6° at group level (N = 6), p = 0.016. The p < 0.002 result for the same direction across all six people is an individual bootstrap analysis, not the group result.

The separate passive simulated-saccade analysis used four observers. It is not the same analysis as the instructed-saccade participant results.

## Limits

On average, 52% of trials were retained, so about 48% were discarded. The archived source reports this average, not a per-participant range. The analysis uses a pre- and post-saccadic spectral window.

A browser cannot guarantee visual angle, viewing distance, 200 Hz timing, or calibrated contrast. This page does not reproduce the gaze experiment, is not a self-test, and gives no medical advice.

The paper is marked **Article in Press**. It is accepted and citable, but it is not yet the Version of Record.

## Sources

- Li, Y. H., Cox, M. A., Victor, J. D. et al., [What one sees depends on how far the eye has moved](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-76503-6), *Nature Communications*, 2026.
- [Supplementary Information](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-026-76503-6/MediaObjects/41467_2026_76503_MOESM1_ESM.pdf), [Reporting Summary](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-026-76503-6/MediaObjects/41467_2026_76503_MOESM2_ESM.pdf), and [Transparent Peer Review](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-026-76503-6/MediaObjects/41467_2026_76503_MOESM3_ESM.pdf).
- [bioRxiv preprint, DOI 10.1101/2025.09.17.676280](https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.17.676280).
- [CC BY 4.0 licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).