# Eye Movement Parameters in Children with Reading Difficulties
## 4 Discussion  
The results of the current study demonstrate that there are no significant differences in saccadic and smooth pursuit parameters, nor in fixation stability, in children with and without reading difficulties. A slight difference was observed in the accuracy of the vertically oriented anti-saccades of all children and the smooth pursuit gain of 7-year-old children with and without reading difficulties; however, the main differences were observed only in the downwards-oriented anti-saccades, which, as presented in the current study and in other studies, have been demonstrated to have higher variability [53]. In general, the current findings are consistent with the results demonstrated by [PERSON] et al. [39] and [PERSON] [38], who did not observe significant differences in saccadic latency, accuracy, or velocity parameters between dyslexic and non-dyslexic children. While different studies [29; 54; 55] have indicated lower performance in anti-saccade tasks in children  
Figure 8: Binocular fixation stability in children with and without reading difficulties. Box plots represent interquartile range; crosses indicate the mean values, and lines indicate the medians. with dyslexia, the differences are mainly observed in the error rates and correction rates, not related to the dynamics of saccadic eye movements. [PERSON] et al. [56] reported that children with different learning difficulties had not only higher error rates, but also significantly higher latencies in anti-saccade tasks compared to the control group. While the differences observed in the current study and the study by [PERSON] et al. [56] could be attributed to differences in research methodologies (e.g., eye tracking equipment, as well as different methods applied in selecting the research participants), the results of the current study are in accordance with other previous studies, indicating that the oculomotor control of saccadic eye movements in children with reading difficulties is intact. And the previously demonstrated differences in the anti-saccade error rates are, as reported by [PERSON] et al. [57], attributed to the impairment of inhibitory control. [PERSON] et al. [58] demonstrated that the peak velocity of reflexive saccades is higher than in anti-saccade tasks; however, the current results indicate an opposite tendency. The extent to which the peak velocities in reflexive saccades are lower is still under debate. While the study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [59] observed a tendency of peak velocity in anti-saccade tasks to be slower than in pro-saccade ones, this was not confirmed statistically. Furthermore, in the study by [PERSON] et al. [60], the control group of healthy children had almost identical mean peak velocity results in pro-saccade and anti-saccade tasks. The results of the current study indicate slightly higher average peak velocity results in the anti-saccade tasks compared to reflexive saccades (with or without the data replacement). Since the observed differences in the mean results were within the standard error, we assume that they were not of a causal nature; however, the observed differences should be explored in further research. While previous studies have demonstrated that several brain regions involved in reading also play a role in the neural control of smooth pursuit eye movements [57], not all individuals with reading difficulties exhibit smooth pursuit abnormalities [40; 61]. This observation is consistent with the findings of the current research--no significant difference in smooth pursuit eye movements in children with and without reading difficulties was observed (except for in 7-year-old children). Furthermore, the results fell within the normal range according to the normative values defined by [PERSON] et al. [62].