Saccadic undershoot is not inevitable: saccades can be accurate

Abstract

Saccades normally take the eye 90% of the way to a target, followed by a 10% corrective saccade. An exception to this rule occurs with the range effect. When targets appear in a set of positions, saccades overshoot the near positions and undershoot the far. This phenomenon, previously reported, was confirmed with more accurate methods. The range effect increases if a visual discrimination task is added. It is established rapidly in only a few trials. Latencies of corrective saccades from overshoots and undershoots were the same. Centripetal saccades were more accurate than centrifugal. Thus, undershooting is not inevitable.