scholarly journals Cross-decoding reveals shared brain activity patterns between saccadic eye-movements and semantic processing of implicitly spatial words

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Ostarek ◽  
Jeroen van Paridon ◽  
Falk Huettig
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Semantic Processing ◽  
Brain Activity ◽  
Activity Patterns ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Word Meanings ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
High Level

AbstractProcessing words with referents that are typically observed up or down in space (up/down words) influences the subsequent identification of visual targets in congruent locations. Eye-tracking studies have shown that up/down word comprehension shortens launch times of subsequent saccades to congruent locations and modulates concurrent saccade trajectories. This can be explained by a task-dependent interaction of semantic processing and oculomotor programs or by a direct recruitment of direction-specific processes in oculomotor and spatial systems as part of semantic processing. To test the latter possibility, we conducted a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment and used multi-voxel pattern analysis to assess 1) whether the typical location of word referents can be decoded from the fronto-parietal spatial network and 2) whether activity patterns are shared between up/down words and up/down saccadic eye movements. In line with these hypotheses, significant decoding of up vs. down words and cross-decoding between up/down saccades and up/down words were observed in the frontal eye field region in the superior frontal sulcus and the inferior parietal lobule. Beyond these spatial attention areas, typical location of word referents could be decoded from a set of occipital, temporal, and frontal areas, indicating that interactions between high-level regions typically implicated with lexical-semantic processing and spatial/oculomotor regions constitute the neural basis for access to spatial aspects of word meanings.

Suppression of Task-Related Saccades by Electrical Stimulation in the Primate's Frontal Eye Field

1997 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 2252-2267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Burman ◽  
Charles J. Bruce
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Eye Movements ◽  
Frontal Lobe ◽  
Premotor Cortex ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Association Cortex ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Visually Guided ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
Eye Field

Burman, Douglas D. and Charles J. Bruce. Suppression of task-related saccades by electrical stimulation in the primate's frontal eye field. J. Neurophysiol. 77: 2252–2267, 1997. Patients with frontal lobe damage have difficulty suppressing reflexive saccades to salient visual stimuli, indicating that frontal lobe neocortex helps to suppress saccades as well as to produce them. In the present study, a role for the frontal eye field (FEF) in suppressing saccades was demonstrated in macaque monkeys by application of intracortical microstimulation during the performance of a visually guided saccade task, a memory prosaccade task, and a memory antisaccade task. A train of low-intensity (20–50 μA) electrical pulses was applied simultaneously with the disappearance of a central fixation target, which was always the cue to initiate a saccade. Trials with and without stimulation were compared, and significantly longer saccade latencies on stimulation trials were considered evidence of suppression. Low-intensity stimulation suppressed task-related saccades at 30 of 77 sites tested. In many cases saccades were suppressed throughout the microstimulation period (usually 450 ms) and then executed shortly after the train ended. Memory-guided saccades were most dramatically suppressed and were often rendered hypometric, whereas visually guided saccades were less severely suppressed by stimulation. At 18 FEF sites, the suppression of saccades was the only observable effect of electrical stimulation. Contraversive saccades were usually more strongly suppressed than ipsiversive ones, and cells recorded at such purely suppressive sites commonly had either foveal receptive fields or postsaccadic responses. At 12 other FEF sites at which saccadic eye movements were elicited at low thresholds, task-related saccades whose vectors differed from that of the electrically elicited saccade were suppressed by electrical stimulation. Such suppression at saccade sites was observed even with currents below the threshold for eliciting saccades. Pure suppression sites tended to be located near or in the fundus, deeper in the anterior bank of the arcuate than elicited saccade sites. Stimulation in the prefrontal association cortex anterior to FEF did not suppress saccades, nor did stimulation in premotor cortex posterior to FEF. These findings indicate that the primate FEF can help orchestrate saccadic eye movements by suppressing inappropriate saccade vectors as well as by selecting, specifying, and triggering appropriate saccades. We hypothesize that saccades could be suppressed both through local FEF interactions and through FEF projections to subcortical regions involved in maintaining fixation.

Muscimol-Induced Inactivation of Monkey Frontal Eye Field: Effects on Visually and Memory-Guided Saccades

1999 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 2191-2214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa C. Dias ◽  
Mark A. Segraves
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Target Location ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Spatial Location ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Visually Guided ◽  
Field Effects ◽  
Progressive Loss ◽  
Eye Field

Muscimol-induced inactivation of the monkey frontal eye field: effects on visually and memory-guided saccades. Although neurophysiological, anatomic, and imaging evidence suggest that the frontal eye field (FEF) participates in the generation of eye movements, chronic lesions of the FEF in both humans and monkeys appear to cause only minor deficits in visually guided saccade generation. Stronger effects are observed when subjects are tested in tasks with more cognitive requirements. We tested oculomotor function after acutely inactivating regions of the FEF to minimize the effects of plasticity and reallocation of function after the loss of the FEF and gain more insight into the FEF contribution to the guidance of eye movements in the intact brain. Inactivation was induced by microinjecting muscimol directly into physiologically defined sites in the FEF of three monkeys. FEF inactivation severely impaired the monkeys’ performance of both visually guided and memory-guided saccades. The monkeys initiated fewer saccades to the retinotopic representation of the inactivated FEF site than to any other location in the visual field. The saccades that were initiated had longer latencies, slower velocities, and larger targeting errors than controls. These effects were present both for visually guided and for memory-guided saccades, although the memory-guided saccades were more disrupted. Initially, the effects were restricted spatially, concentrating around the retinotopic representation at the center of the inactivated site, but, during the course of several hours, these effects spread to flanking representations. Predictability of target location and motivation of the monkey also affected saccadic performance. For memory-guided saccades, increases in the time during which the monkey had to remember the spatial location of a target resulted in further decreases in the accuracy of the saccades and in smaller peak velocities, suggesting a progressive loss of the capacity to maintain a representation of target location in relation to the fovea after FEF inactivation. In addition, the monkeys frequently made premature saccades to targets in the hemifield ipsilateral to the injection site when performing the memory task, indicating a deficit in the control of fixation that could be a consequence of an imbalance between ipsilateral and contralateral FEF activity after the injection. There was also a progressive loss of fixation accuracy, and the monkeys tended to restrict spontaneous visual scanning to the ipsilateral hemifield. These results emphasize the strong role of the FEF in the intact monkey in the generation of all voluntary saccadic eye movements, as well as in the control of fixation.

Deficits in eye movements following frontal eye-field and superior colliculus ablations

1980 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 1175-1189 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. H. Schiller ◽  
S. D. True ◽  
J. L. Conway
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Superior Colliculus ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
The Other ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Saccade Velocity ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Parallel Channels ◽  
Coil Method

1. This study investigated the effects of frontal eye-field and superior colliculus ablations on fixation patterns and saccadic eye movements. Monkeys were trained to pick apple pieces out of a multiple-slotted apple board while their heads were fixed. Eye movement records were obtained using predominantly the implanted search-coil method. 2. Both unilateral and bilateral frontal eye-field lesions produced only temporary deficits in eye movements. Following surgery monkeys tended to neglect the contralateral peripheral visual field and made fewer saccades to peripheral targets. Recovery was virtually completed in 2-4 wk. 3. Superior colliculus ablation reduced fixation accuracy, saccade frequency, and saccade velocity. These deficits showed little recovery with time. 4. Paired frontal eye-field and superior colliculus lesions produced dramatic deficits in visually triggered eye movements. Animals could no longer fixate their eyes on visual targets with any degree of accuracy. The range of eye movements was greatly reduced, as was the frequency and velocity of saccades. These deficits showed little recovery with time. 5. These results suggest that visually triggered saccadic eye movements are controlled by two parallel channels, one involving the superior colliculus and the other the frontal eye field.

scholarly journals Motor action of the frontal eye field on the eyes and neck in the monkey

2018 ◽  
Vol 119 (6) ◽  
pp. 2082-2090
Author(s):  
Yoshiko Izawa ◽  
Hisao Suzuki
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Measuring System ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Gaze Shift ◽  
Restrained Condition ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Slow Eye Movements ◽  
Motor Actions ◽  
Stimulation Of

Focal stimulation in the frontal eye field (FEF) evoked eye movements that were often accompanied by neck movements. Experiments were performed with concurrent recording of both movements in trained monkeys. We recorded neck forces under a head-restrained condition with a force-measuring system. With the system, we measured forces along the x-, y-, and z-axes and torque about the z-axis. Torque about the z-axis that represented yaw rotation of the head was significantly affected by stimulation. We found that stimulation generated two types of motor actions of the eyes and neck. In the first type, contraversive neck forces were evoked by stimulation of the medial part of the FEF, where contraversive saccadic eye movements with large amplitudes were evoked. When the stimulus intensity was increased, saccades were evoked in an all-or-none manner, whereas the amplitude of neck forces increased gradually. In the second type, contraversive neck forces were evoked by stimulation of the medial and caudal part of the FEF, where ipsiversive slow eye movements were evoked. The depth profiles of amplitudes of neck forces were almost parallel to those of eye movements in individual stimulation tracks. The present results suggest that the FEF is involved in the control of motor actions of the neck as well as the eyes. The FEF area associated with contraversive saccades and contraversive neck movements may contribute to a gaze shift process, whereas that associated with ipsiversive slow eye movements and contraversive neck movements may contribute to a visual stabilization process. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Focal stimulation in the frontal eye field (FEF) evoked eye and neck movements. We recorded neck forces under a head-restrained condition with a force-measuring system. Taking advantage of this approach, we could analyze slow eye movements that were dissociated from the vestibuloocular reflex. We found ipsiversive slow eye movements in combination with contraversive neck forces, suggesting that the FEF may be a source of a corollary discharge signal for compensatory eye movements during voluntary neck movements.

scholarly journals Spatio-temporal Brain Dynamics Underlying Saccade Execution, Suppression, and Error-related Feedback

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 420-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Herdman ◽  
Jennifer D. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Neural Responses ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
On Line ◽  
Spatio Temporal ◽  
Neural Underpinnings ◽  
Empirical Demonstration

Human and nonhuman animal research has outlined the neural regions that support saccadic eye movements. The aim of the current work was to outline the sequence by which distinct neural regions come on-line to support goal-directed saccade execution and error-related feedback. To achieve this, we obtained behavioral responses via eye movement recordings and neural responses via magnetoencephalography (MEG), concurrently, while participants performed an antisaccade task. Neural responses were examined with respect to the onset of the saccadic eye movements. Frontal eye field and visual cortex activity distinguished subsequently successful goal-directed saccades from (correct and erroneous) reflexive saccades prior to the deployment of the eye movement. Activity in the same neural regions following the saccadic movement distinguished correct from incorrect saccadic responses. Error-related activity in the frontal eye fields preceded that from visual regions, suggesting a potential feedback network that may drive corrective eye movements. This work provides the first empirical demonstration of simultaneous remote eyetracking and MEG recording. The coupling of behavioral and neuroimaging technologies, used here to characterize dynamic brain networks underlying saccade execution and error-related feedback, demonstrates a novel within-paradigm converging evidence approach by which to outline the neural underpinnings of cognition.

Functional Anatomy of Pursuit Eye Movements in Humans as Revealed by fMRI

1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 463-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Petit ◽  
James V. Haxby
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Temporal Cortex ◽  
Functional Anatomy ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Magnetic Imaging ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Parietal Eye

We have investigated the functional anatomy of pursuit eye movements in humans with functional magnetic imaging. The performance of pursuit eye movements induced activations in the cortical eye fields also activated during the execution of visually guided saccadic eye movements, namely in the precentral cortex [frontal eye field (FEF)], the medial superior frontal cortex (supplementary eye field), the intraparietal cortex (parietal eye field), and the precuneus, and at the junction of occipital and temporal cortex (MT/MST) cortex. Pursuit-related areas could be distinguished from saccade-related areas both in terms of spatial extent and location. Pursuit-related areas were smaller than their saccade-related counterparts, three of eight significantly so. The pursuit-related FEF was usually inferior to saccade-related FEF. Other pursuit-related areas were consistently posterior to their saccade-related counterparts. The current findings provide the first functional imaging evidence for a distinction between two parallel cortical systems that subserve pursuit and saccadic eye movements in humans.

Primate frontal eye field activity during natural scanning eye movements

1994 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 1266-1271 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. D. Burman ◽  
M. A. Segraves
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Receptive Field ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Visual Activity ◽  
Eye Fixations ◽  
Field Activity ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Visuomotor Tasks ◽  
Experimental Subjects

1. As we scan an image, saccadic eye movements direct our vision to features that attract our attention. Although it is likely that the frontal eye field (FEF) cortex is an important component of the system generating those movements, most studies of FEF neuronal activity have relied upon visuomotor tasks where the experimental subjects are constrained to look from one spot of light to another. In this study, single-unit activity was recorded in the FEF while monkeys freely scanned a variety of projected images, and that activity was compared with activity evoked during conventional visuomotor tasks. 2. FEF neurons with visual activity in conventional tasks increased their activity during scanning when a portion of the image within their receptive field was targeted for the next saccade, but decreased their activity when a target was chosen outside of the receptive field. 3. FEF neurons with movement-related activity during conventional tasks were also active in association with saccades made during scanning. 4. Visual and movement activity were also studied by creating a task that approximated the conditions during the scanning paradigm (rescan task). This was done by superimposing a moveable spot of light onto the image that had been scanned, and rewarding the monkey for following the light as it recreated the original scan's spatial and temporal pattern of eye fixations. In contrast to the visual activity of neurons during the scanning paradigm, visual activity during the rescan task was unaffected by portions of the image within the cell's receptive field, but increased in response to the appearance of the target light.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effect of eye position within the orbit on electrically elicited saccadic eye movements: a comparison of the macaque monkey's frontal and supplementary eye fields

1993 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 800-818 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. Russo ◽  
C. J. Bruce
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Eye Position ◽  
Constant Vector ◽  
Rectangular Array ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Orbital Perturbation ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
The Mean

1. We quantitatively compared the effects of eye position within the orbit on saccadic eye movements electrically elicited from two oculomotor areas of the macaque monkey's frontal lobe cortex: the frontal eye field (FEF) and the supplementary eye field (SEF). 2. The effect of eye position on electrically elicited saccades was studied by delivering 70-ms trains of intracortical microstimulation while the monkeys fixated a spot of light. Tests of different fixation points located across a rectangular array were randomly intermixed. Complete experiments were carried out on 38 sites in three FEFs of two monkeys and 59 sites from three SEFs of the same two monkeys. Stimulation currents for the array experiments were usually 10–20 microA above the site threshold; the average current used was 36 microA for FEF and 49 microA for SEF. 3. The magnitude of effect of the initial eye position on the elicited saccade's dimensions was quantified at each site by computing the linear regression of saccadic eye movement displacement on the eye position within the orbit when stimulation was applied. This computation was done separately for the horizontal and vertical axes. We call the resulting pair of regression coefficients “orbital perturbation indexes.” Indexes of 0.0 represent elicited saccades that do not change their trajectory with different initial eye positions (constant-vector saccades), whereas indexes of -1.0 represent elicited saccades that end at the same orbital position regardless of initial eye position (goal-directed saccades). 4. The effect of eye position varied across sites. In both FEF and SEF, the orbital perturbation indexes were distributed between approximately 0.0 and -0.5, with the horizontal and vertical indexes highly correlated across sites. 5. The average orbital perturbation indexes were small for both eye fields and were not significantly different. The mean horizontal indexes were -0.13 and -0.16 for SEF and FEF, respectively. The mean vertical indexes were -0.16 and -0.13. Neither SEF versus FEF difference was statistically significant. 6. In both SEF and FEF, sites yielding larger-amplitude saccades generally had larger orbital effects than sites yielding smaller saccades. This relationship accounted for the majority of the variability of the orbital perturbation indexes across sites in both SEF and FEF. 7. These results indicate that SEF and FEF are not distinguished from each other by the orbital dependence of their electrically elicited saccades. Thus they do not confirm the previously hypothesized dichotomy that FEF codes constant-vector saccades and SEF codes goal-directed saccades.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document