Table 1.

Size and frequency of corrective saccades made for each subject in comparison to the size of the presented visual error

				Corrective Saccades
Subject	Clamp Size, Degrees	Inherent Hypometria, Degrees	Gain Change, %	Amplitude	Frequency, %	Latency, ms
A	0.7	0.80	−4.13	0.49 ± 0.19	28	349.65 ± 64.65
B	0.7	0.66	6.51	0.38 ± 0.13	72	260.29 ± 57.11
C	0.7	1.84	−4.90	0.48 ± 0.21	67	288.90 ± 95.38
D	0.7	2.66	−11.90	0.39 ± 1.34	60	249.41 ± 63.25
E	0.7	1.02	−6.25	0.59 ± 0.73	54	279.96 ± 99.64
F	0.7	4.83	−12.55	0.41 ± 0.14	65	366.23 ± 72.55
G	0.7	1.23	−7.53	0.59 ± 0.16	64	328.37 ± 82.34
H	0.7	0.71	−0.27	0.42 ± 0.14	67	273.38 ± 72.77
I	0.7	0.93	0.71	0.56 ± 0.18	55	340.01 ± 71.68
J	0.7	2.98	−11.68	0.57 ± 0.17	53	288.65 ± 79.78
K	0.7	−0.53	−10.07.	0.38 ± 0.45	53	343.75 ± 80.79
L	0.5	1.86	−6.14	0.31 ± 0.45	77	252.61 ± 57.36
	1.0	2.75	−0.50	0.42 ± 0.13	75	259.01 ± 56.04
	2.0	1.04	8.20	1.43 ± 0.21	99	191.33 ± 28.61

Corrective saccade amplitude values are medians ± semi-interquartile deviations (SID) across the 6 adaptation blocks; latency values are means ± SD. Measured latencies are reasonable given the corresponding corrective saccade amplitudes (Becker 1989). As discussed in text, subject K had both hypometric and hypermetric saccades. When all hypermetric saccades were removed, the inherent hypometria was calculated to be 1.06° and the gain change to be −5.72%.