The effects of direction and identity of pointing hand stimulus on manual key press responses

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Nishimura ◽  
A. Ariga ◽  
C. Michimata
Keyword(s):  
Key Press

Endogenously Generated and Visually Guided Saccades after Lesions of the Human Frontal Eye Fields

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avishai Henik ◽  
Robert Rafal ◽  
Dell Rhodes
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Visual Display ◽  
Covert Attention ◽  
Visual Signal ◽  
Frontal Eye Fields ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
Key Press ◽  
Reflexive Saccades ◽  
Voluntary Saccades

Nine patients with chronic, unilateral lesions of the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex including the frontal eye fields (FEF) made saccades toward contralesional and ipsilesional fields. The saccades were either voluntarily directed in response to arrows in the center of a visual display, or were reflexively summoned by a peripheral visual signal. Saccade latencies were compared to those made by seven neurologic control patients with chronic, unilateral lesions of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex sparing the FEF, and by 13 normal control subjects. In both the normal and neurologic control subjects, reflexive saccades had shorter Latencies than voluntary saccades. In the FEF lesion patients, voluntary saccades had longer latencies toward the contralesional field than toward the ipsilesional field. The opposite pattern was found for reflexive saccades: latencies of saccades to targets in the contralesional field were shorter than saccades summoned to ipsilesional targets. Reflexive saccades toward the ipsilesional field had abnormally prolonged latencies; they were comparable to the latencies observed for voluntary Saccades. The effect of FEF lesions on saccacles contrasted with those observed in a second experiment requiring a key press response: FEF lesion patients were slower in making key press responses to signals detected in the contralesional field. To assess covert attention and preparatory set the effects of precues providing advance information were measured in both saccade and key press experiments. Neither patient group showed any deficiency in using precues to shift attention or to prepare saccades. The FEF facilitates the generation of voluntary saccatles and also inhibits reflexive saccades to exogenous signals. FEF lesions may disinhibit the ipsilesional midbrain which in turn may inhibit the opposite colliculus to slow reflexive saccades toward the ipsilesional field.

Two movement-related foci in the primate cingulate cortex observed in signal-triggered and self-paced forelimb movements

1991 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Shima ◽  
K. Aya ◽  
H. Mushiake ◽  
M. Inase ◽  
H. Aizawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Neurons ◽  
Primary Motor Cortex ◽  
Motor Task ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Posterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
The Self ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Key Press ◽  
Flexor Muscles ◽  
Hrp Method

1. Single-unit activity in the cingulate cortex of the monkey was recorded during the performance of sensorially (visual, auditory, or tactile) triggered or self-paced forelimb key press movements. 2. Microelectrodes were inserted into the broad rostrocaudal expanse of the cingulate cortex, including the upper and lower banks of the cingulate sulcus and the hemispheric medial wall of the cingulate gyrus. 3. A total of 1,042 task-related neurons were examined, the majority of which were related to the execution of the key press movements. In greater than 60% of them, the movement-related activity preceded the activity in the distal flexor muscles. 4. The movement-related neurons were distributed, in two foci, in the posterior and anterior parts of the cingulate cortex, both including the upper and lower banks of the cingulate sulcus. The posterior focus was found to largely overlap the area projecting to the forelimb area of the primary motor cortex by the use of the horseradish peroxidase (HRP) method. 5. About 40% of the cingulate cortical neurons showed equimagnitude responses during the signal-triggered and self-paced movements. The neurons exhibiting a selective or differential response to the self-paced motor task were more frequently observed in the anterior than in the posterior cingulate cortex. 6. The long-lead type of changes in activity, ranging from 500 ms to 2 s, were observed mainly before the self-paced and, much less frequently, before the triggered movements. They were particularly abundant in the anterior cingulate cortex. 7. Only a few of the neurons showed activity time-locked to the onset of the sensory signals. 8. These observations indicate that the anterior and posterior parts of the cingulate cortex are distinct entities participating in the performance of limb movements, even if the movements are simple, such as those in this study.

scholarly journals A RAPID AUTOMATIC TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING OPERANT KEY-PRESS BEHAVIOR IN RATS

1971 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold B. Davidson ◽  
Dixon J. Davis ◽  
Leonard Cook
Keyword(s):  
Key Press ◽  
Automatic Technique

Contrasting neuronal activity in supplementary and precentral motor cortex of monkeys. I. Responses to instructions determining motor responses to forthcoming signals of different modalities

1985 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Tanji ◽  
K. Kurata
Keyword(s):  
Neuronal Activity ◽  
Supplementary Motor Area ◽  
Present Report ◽  
Tone Burst ◽  
Motor Area ◽  
Activity Increase ◽  
Auditory Mode ◽  
Key Press ◽  
Types Of Instruction ◽  
Increased Activity

The present report contrasts neuronal activity in two motor cortical fields after instructions that determine which of two sensory signals will trigger a movement and which will not. The goal of the study was to determine possible differential roles of the two cortical fields in the process of preparing to move in response to one external cue and to ignore another. Single-cell recordings were made from the supplementary motor area (SMA) and the precentral motor area (PCM) of monkeys trained to perform key-press movements in two different modes. In the auditory mode, an instruction signal warned the animal to prepare to start the movement promptly in response to a forthcoming 1,000-Hz tone burst (trigger signal), but to remain motionless if the signal was vibrotactile (nontrigger signal). In the tactile mode, the trigger and nontrigger signals were reversed: a different instruction signal warned the animal to prepare to perform the key-press movement in response to the vibrotactile cue, but to withhold it in response to the 1,000-Hz tone. The instruction signals were auditory tones of 300 Hz for the auditory mode and 100 Hz for the tactile mode. Out of 259 task-related SMA neurons, 128 (49%) responded to instructions. Three types of instruction responses were observed: 1) 95 neurons showed continuous instruction-induced activity changes lasting until the occurrence of the movement-triggering signal, regardless of whether an intervening nontrigger signal occurred. 2) 24 neurons showed increased activity until the occurrence of the nontriggering signal, after which the activity subsided. When there was no nontrigger signal, the activity increased during a period when the nontrigger signal might have been given. 3) Nine neurons responded with a transient, short-latency discharge after the instruction. The responses of SMA neurons to two instructions were often different. Forty-four SMA neurons exhibited a selective response to only one of the two instructions. In 43 neurons the response was differential, with the magnitude of activity increase or decrease being at least three times greater after one instruction than the other. In the remaining 41 neurons the response was nondifferential. Out of 112 task-related PCM neurons, 25 (22%) responded to the instructions. In the majority of them (21 neurons), the instruction response was nondifferential.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Self-Sustaining Activities and Reinforcement in the Nest Building Behaviour of Mice

Behaviour ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 59 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 40-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.J. Roper
Keyword(s):  
Nest Building ◽  
Nest Box ◽  
Positive Reinforcer ◽  
Female Mice ◽  
Key Press ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Building Activities ◽  
Building Behaviour

AbstractEIBL-EIBESFELDT (1961) and THORPE (1963) have suggested that nest-building in various species is reinforced by stimuli associated with the acquisition of a finished nest. HINDE & STEVENSON (1969, 1970) have proposed, by contrast, that individual nest building activities may persist and act as reinforcers regardless of whether or not they lead to nest formation. Evidence for these views is discussed. Five experiments designed to test HINDE and STEVENSON'S view arc described. In Experiments I and 2, naive female mice were given access to hoppers of paper strips for 14 days. Carrying of strips into the nest box declined rapidly to zero as the nests reached completion, but gathering of strips from the hoppers continued at the original level. It is concluded that carrying and subsequent events associated with nest acquisition are not necessary for the initiation and maintenance of gathering. In Experiments 3 and 4, access to paper strips was made contingent upon performance of an arbitrary operant (key pressing). The majority of subjects continued to key press and gather paper after the cessation of carrying, but at a reduced level. Furthermore, key pressing to gather only occurred if the operant-reinforcer distance was very small. It is concluded that gathering per se is less reinforcing than gathering plus carrying and building. In Experiment 5, amount of gathering per reinforcement was varied by using different widths of paper. Number of reinforcements per session was positively related to paper width, providing further evidence that gathering is reinforcing. It is concluded that gathering is at least to some extent autonomously controlled, and that it is a weak positive reinforcer. However the results also suggest that other reinforcing events are present at a later stage in the nest building sequence. Some theories concerning the causation of selfsustaining activities, and their implications for unitary drive theories, are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document