Neural correlates of attention and distractibility in the lateral intraparietal area

We examined the activity of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) during a task in which we measured attention in the monkey, using an advantage in contrast sensitivity as our definition of attention. The animals planned a memory-guided saccade but made or canceled it depending on the orientation of a briefly flashed probe stimulus. We measured the monkeys' contrast sensitivity by varying the contrast of the probe. Both subjects had better thresholds at the goal of the saccade than elsewhere. If a task-irrelevant distractor flashed elsewhere in the visual field, the attentional advantage transiently shifted to that site. The population response in LIP correlated with the allocation of attention; the attentional advantage lay at the location in the visual field whose representation in LIP had the greatest activity when the probe appeared. During a brief period in which there were two equally active regions in LIP, there was no attentional advantage at either location. This time, the crossing point, differed in the two animals, proving a strong correlation between the activity and behavior. The crossing point of each neuron depended on the relationship of three parameters: the visual response to the distractor, the saccade-related delay activity, and the rate of decay of the transient response to the distractor. Thus the time at which attention lingers on a distractor is set by the mechanism underlying these three biophysical properties. Finally, we showed that for a brief time LIP neurons showed a stronger response to signal canceling the planned saccade than to the confirmation signal.     

The time course of perisaccadic receptive field shifts in the lateral intraparietal area of the monkey

Neurons in the lateral intraparietal area of the monkey (LIP) have visual receptive fields in retinotopic coordinates when studied in a fixation task. However, in the period immediately surrounding a saccade these receptive fields often shift, so that a briefly flashed stimulus outside the receptive field will drive the neurons if the eye movement will bring the spatial location of that vanished stimulus into the receptive field. This is equivalent to a transient shift of the retinal receptive field. The process enables the monkey brain to process a stimulus in a spatially accurate manner after a saccade, even though the stimulus appeared only before the saccade. We studied the time course of this receptive field shift by flashing a task-irrelevant stimulus for 100 ms before, during, or after a saccade. The stimulus could appear in receptive field as defined by the fixation before the saccade (the current receptive field) or the receptive field as defined by the fixation after the saccade (the future receptive field). We recorded the activity of 48 visually responsive neurons in LIP of three hemispheres of two rhesus monkeys. We studied 45 neurons in the current receptive field task, in which the saccade removed the stimulus from the receptive field. Of these neurons 29/45 (64%) showed a significant decrement of response when the stimulus appeared 250 ms or less before the saccade, as compared with their activity during fixation. The average response decrement was 38% for those cells showing a significant (P < 0.05 by t-test) decrement. We studied 39 neurons in the future receptive field task, in which the saccade brought the spatial location of a recently vanished stimulus into the receptive field. Of these 32/39 (82%) had a significant response to stimuli flashed for 100 ms in the future receptive field, even 400 ms before the saccade. Neurons never responded to stimuli moved by the saccade from a point outside the receptive field to another point outside the receptive field. Neurons did not necessarily show any saccadic suppression for stimuli moved from one part of the receptive field to another by the saccade. Stimuli flashed <250 ms before the saccade-evoked responses in both the presaccadic and the postsaccadic receptive fields, resulting in an increase in the effective receptive field size, an effect that we suggest is responsible for perisaccadic perceptual inaccuracies.     

Participation of prefrontal neurons in the preparation of visually guided eye movements in the rhesus monkey

1. We recorded from 257 neurons in the banks of the posterior third of the principal sulcus of two rhesus monkeys trained to look at a fixation point and make saccades to stimuli in the visual periphery. Sixty-six percent (220/257) discharged or were suppressed in association with one or more aspects of the tasks we used. 2. Fifty-eight percent (151/257) of the neurons responded to the appearance of a spot of light in some part of the contralateral visual field. Cells did not seem to have absolute requirements for stimulus shape, size, or direction of motion. 3. Thirty-six percent (29/79) of visually responsive neurons tested quantitatively gave an enhanced response to the stimulus in the receptive field when the monkey had to make a saccade to the stimulus when its appearance was synchronous with the disappearance of the fixation point (synchron task). Twenty-nine percent (19/57) of the neurons gave an enhanced response to the stimulus when the monkey had to make a saccade to the stimulus some time after it appeared (delayed-saccade task). In general, enhancement in the synchron task correlated well with enhancement in the delayed-saccade task. 4. Enhancement was spatially specific. It did not occur when the monkey made a saccade to a stimulus outside the receptive field even though there was a stimulus within the receptive field. 5. Twenty-three percent (27/117) of neurons studied in the delayed-saccade task gave two bursts, one at the appearance of the stimulus and a second one around the saccade. This second burst generally did not occur when the monkey made the same saccade to a remembered target, but instead required the presence of the visual stimulus, and so we describe it as a reactivation of the visual response. Reactivation was also spatially specific. 6. The latency from reactivation to the beginning of the saccade ranged from 160 ms before the saccade to the beginning of the saccade. Reactivation usually continued for several hundred milliseconds after the saccade, sometimes for the duration of the trial. 7. Reactivation and enhancement are not the same mechanism. Although some cells showed both phenomena there was no correlation between enhancement and reactivation. 8. Cells that showed reactivation in the saccade task also showed reactivation at a weaker level in a suppressed-saccade task. In this task the monkeys had to hold fixation despite the disappearance of the fixation point and the continued presence of the peripheral stimulus.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Comparison of memory- and visually guided saccades using event-related fMRI

Previous functional imaging studies have shown an increased hemodynamic signal in several cortical areas when subjects perform memory-guided saccades than that when they perform visually guided saccades using blocked trial designs. It is unknown, however, whether this difference results from sensory processes associated with stimulus presentation, from processes occurring during the delay period before saccade generation, or from an increased motor signal for memory-guided saccades. We conducted fMRI using an event-related paradigm that separated stimulus-related, delay-related, and saccade-related activity. Subjects initially fixated a central cross, whose color indicated whether the trial was a memory- or a visually guided trial. A peripheral stimulus was then flashed at one of 4 possible locations. On memory-guided trials, subjects had to remember this location for the subsequent saccade, whereas the stimulus was a distractor on visually guided trials. Fixation cross disappearance after a delay period was the signal either to generate a memory-guided saccade or to look at a visual stimulus that was flashed on visually guided trials. We found slightly greater stimulus-related activation for visually guided trials in 3 right prefrontal regions and right rostral intraparietal sulcus (IPS). Memory-guided trials evoked greater delay-related activity in right posterior inferior frontal gyrus, right medial frontal eye field, bilateral supplementary eye field, right rostral IPS, and right ventral IPS but not in middle frontal gyrus. Right precentral gyrus and right rostral IPS exhibited greater saccade-related activation on memory-guided trials. We conclude that activation differences revealed by previous blocked experiments have different sources in different areas and that cortical saccade regions exhibit delay-related activation differences.     

Distractor effects on saccade trajectories: a comparison of prosaccades, antisaccades, and memory-guided saccades

The present study investigated the contribution of the presence of a visual signal at the saccade goal on saccade trajectory deviations and measured distractor-related inhibition as indicated by deviation away from an irrelevant distractor. Performance in a prosaccade task where a visual target was present at the saccade goal was compared to performance in an anti- and memory-guided saccade task. In the latter two tasks no visual signal is present at the location of the saccade goal. It was hypothesized that if saccade deviation can be ultimately explained in terms of relative activation levels between the saccade goal location and distractor locations, the absence of a visual stimulus at the goal location will increase the competition evoked by the distractor and affect saccade deviations. The results of Experiment 1 showed that saccade deviation away from a distractor varied significantly depending on whether a visual target was presented at the saccade goal or not: when no visual target was presented, saccade deviation away from a distractor was increased compared to when the visual target was present. The results of Experiments 2–4 showed that saccade deviation did not systematically change as a function of time since the offset of the target. Moreover, Experiments 3 and 4 revealed that the disappearance of the target immediately increased the effect of a distractor on saccade deviations, suggesting that activation at the target location decays very rapidly once the visual signal has disappeared from the display.

Frontal eye field microstimulation induces task-dependent gamma oscillations in the lateral intraparietal area

Macaque frontal eye fields (FEF) and the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) are high-level oculomotor control centers that have been implicated in the allocation of spatial attention. Electrical microstimulation of macaque FEF elicits functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activations in area LIP, but no study has yet investigated the effect of FEF microstimulation on LIP at the single-cell or local field potential (LFP) level. We recorded spiking and LFP activity in area LIP during weak, subthreshold microstimulation of the FEF in a delayed-saccade task. FEF microstimulation caused a highly time- and frequency-specific, task-dependent increase in gamma power in retinotopically corresponding sites in LIP: FEF microstimulation produced a significant increase in LIP gamma power when a saccade target appeared and remained present in the LIP receptive field (RF), whereas less specific increases in alpha power were evoked by FEF microstimulation for saccades directed away from the RF. Stimulating FEF with weak currents had no effect on LIP spike rates or on the gamma power during memory saccades or passive fixation. These results provide the first evidence for task-dependent modulations of LFPs in LIP caused by top-down stimulation of FEF. Since the allocation and disengagement of spatial attention in visual cortex have been associated with increases in gamma and alpha power, respectively, the effects of FEF microstimulation on LIP are consistent with the known effects of spatial attention.     

Spatial processing in the monkey frontal eye field. II. Memory responses.

Monkeys and humans can easily make accurate saccades to stimuli that appear and disappear before an intervening saccade to a different location. We used the flashed-stimulus task to study the memory processes that enable this behavior, and we found two different kinds of memory responses under these conditions. In the short-term spatial memory response, the monkey fixated, a stimulus appeared for 50 ms outside the neuron's receptive field, and from 200 to 1,000 ms later the monkey made a saccade that brought the receptive field onto the spatial location of the vanished stimulus. Twenty-eight of 48 visuomovement cells and 21/32 visual cells responded significantly under these circumstances even though they did not discharge when the monkey made the same saccade without the stimulus present or when the stimulus appeared and the monkey did not make a saccade that brought its spatial location into the receptive field. Response latencies ranged from 48 ms before the beginning of the saccade (predictive responses) to 272 ms after the beginning of the saccade. After the monkey made a series of 16 saccades that brought a stimulus into the receptive field, 21 neurons demonstrated a longer term, intertrial memory response: they discharged even on trials in which no stimulus appeared at all. This intertrial memory response was usually much weaker than the within-trial memory response, and it often lasted for over 20 trials. We suggest that the frontal eye field maintains a spatially accurate representation of the visual world that is not dependent on constant or continuous visual stimulation, and can last for several minutes.     

Dynamic dissociation of visual selection from saccade programming in frontal eye field.

Previous studies of visually responsive neurons in the frontal eye fields have identified a selection process preceding saccades during visual search. The goal of this experiment was to determine whether the selection process corresponds to the selection of a conspicuous stimulus or to preparation of the next saccade. This was accomplished with the use of a novel task, called search-step, in which the target of a singleton visual search array switches location with a distracter on random trials. The target step trials created a condition in which the same stimulus yielded saccades either toward or away from the target. Visually responsive neurons in frontal eye field selected the current location of the conspicuous target even when gaze shifted to the location of a distractor. This dissociation demonstrates that the selection process manifest in visual neurons in the frontal eye field may be an explicit interpretation of the image and not an obligatory saccade command.     

Parietal representation of object-based saccades

When monkeys make saccadic eye movements to simple visual targets, neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) display a retinotopic, or eye-centered, coding of the target location. However natural saccadic eye movements are often directed at objects or parts of objects in the visual scene. In this paper we investigate whether LIP represents saccadic eye movements differently when the target is specified as part of a visually displayed object. Monkeys were trained to perform an object-based saccade task that required them to make saccades to previously cued parts of an abstract object after the object reappeared in a new orientation. We recorded single neurons in area LIP of two macaque monkeys and analyzed their activity in the object-based saccade task, as well as two control tasks: a standard memory saccade task and a fixation task with passive object viewing. The majority of LIP neurons that were tuned in the memory saccade task were also tuned in the object-based saccade task. Using a hierarchical generalized linear model analysis, we compared the effects of three different spatial variables on the firing rate: the retinotopic location of the target, the object-fixed location of the target, and the orientation of the object in space. There was no evidence of an explicit object-fixed representation in the activity in LIP during either of the object-based tasks. In other words, no cells had receptive fields that rotated with the object. While some cells showed a modulation of activity due to the location of the target on the object, these variations were small compared to the retinotopic effects. For most cells, firing rates were best accounted for by either the retinotopic direction of the movement, the orientation of the object, or both spatial variables. The preferred direction of these retinotopic and object orientation effects were found to be invariant across tasks. On average, the object orientation effects were consistent with the retinotopic coding of potential target locations on the object. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the magnitude of these two effects were roughly equal in the early portions of the trial, but around the time of the motor response, the retinotopic effects dominated. We conclude that LIP uses the same retinotopic coding of saccade target whether the target is specified as an absolute point in space or as a location on a moving object.     

Neurons in the lateral intraparietal area create a priority map by the combination of disparate signals

Primates search for objects in the visual field with eye movements. We recorded the activity of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) in animals performing a visual search task in which they were free to move their eyes, and reported the results of the search with a hand movement. We distinguished three independent signals: (1) a visual signal describing the abrupt onset of a visual stimulus in the receptive field; (2) a saccadic signal predicting the monkey’s saccadic reaction time independently of the nature of the stimulus; (3) a cognitive signal distinguishing between the search target and a distractor independently of the direction of the impending saccade. The cognitive signal became significant on average 27 ms after the saccadic signal but before the saccade was made. The three signals summed in a manner discernable at the level of the single neuron. A.E. Ipata and A.L. Gee have contributed equally to this work.     

Short-term changes in movement frequency do not alter the spatial tuning of saccade-related neurons in intraparietal cortex

Modulations of the firing rates of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) have been observed during experiments designed to examine decision-processing, movement planning, and visual attention. These modulations have been assumed to reflect a uniform scaling of spatially stationary response fields, which describe firing rate as a function of either visual target location or movement metrics. However, because complete response fields are rarely collected, the possibility exists that these modulations may reflect shifts in response field location or changes in response field size. Moreover, many of these observed changes in LIP neuronal activity are also correlated with experimental practices that alter the frequency with which particular visual stimuli are viewed and particular movements are produced. The effects of repeatedly presenting a particular target and eliciting a particular movement on the response fields of LIP neurons warrant closer inspection because manipulations of this type are known to alter both the location and size of the receptive fields of many cortical sensory neurons. To address this issue, we measured the response fields of neurons in intraparietal cortex under two conditions over a period of up to 2 h: one in which each of nearly 200 stimulus locations was equally likely to serve as the saccade target on a trial, and a second in which one stimulus location was up to 750 times likelier to serve as the saccade target on a trial than were any of the other stimulus locations. We found no shifts in response field location or changes in response field size when we altered the frequency with which particular movements were produced or particular visual stimuli were presented. These data suggest that the response fields of intraparietal neurons are stationary over short periods of time and under conditions similar to those typically used to study LIP neuronal activity.     

Visual object memory and memory-guided saccades rely on shared mental representations

We investigated the organisation of working memory processes by examining how a secondary memory task interferes with the accuracy of memory-guided saccades. A target was flashed at a random location, followed by a Kanji character. Subjects had to remember the location of the target and the Kanji character, and then they had to make a saccade towards the remembered target location. A second Kanji character was displayed and the subject had to decide if it was same or different. The performance of seven non-Kanji reader's were compared with six fluent Kanji readers in the task. Memorisation of Kanji characters was found to interfere with the accuracy of memory-guided saccades made by non-Kanji, but not by Kanji readers. These findings directly contradict accounts of working memory function which propose that spatial and visual object memory are functionally discrete.     

Primate frontal eye fields. III. Maintenance of a spatially accurate saccade signal

1. We studied the activity of single neurons in the monkey frontal eye fields during oculomotor tasks designed to assess the activity of these neurons when there was a dissonance between the spatial location of a target and its position on the retina. 2. Neurons with presaccadic activity were first studied to determine their receptive or movement fields and to classify them as visual, visuomovement, or movement cells with the use of the criteria described previously (Bruce and Goldberg 1985). The neurons were then studied by the use of double-step tasks that dissociated the retinal coordinates of visual targets from the dimensions of saccadic eye movements necessary to acquire those targets. These tasks required that the monkeys make two successive saccades to follow two sequentially flashed targets. Because the second target disappeared before the first saccade occurred, the dimensions of the second saccade could not be based solely on the retinal coordinates of the target but also depended on the dimensions of the first saccade. We used two versions of the double-step task. In one version neither target appeared in the cell's receptive or movement field, but the second eye movement was the optimum amplitude and direction for the cell (right-EM/wrong-RF task). In the other the second stimulus appeared in the cell's receptive field, but neither eye movement was appropriate for the cell (wrong-EM/right-RF task). 3. Most frontal-eye-field cells discharged in the right-EM/wrong-RF version of the double-step task. Their discharge began after the first saccade and continued until the second saccade was made. They usually discharged even on occasional trials in which the monkey failed to make the second saccade. They discharged much less, or not at all, in the wrong-EM/right-RF version of the double-step paradigm. Thus most presaccadic cells in the frontal eye fields were tuned to the dimensions of saccadic eye movements rather than to the coordinates of retinal stimulation. 4. Eleven movement cells (including 1 which also had independent postsaccadic activity for saccades opposite its presaccadic movement field) were studied, and all had significant activity in the right-EM/wrong-RF task. 5. Almost all (28/32) visuomovement cells, including 12 with independent postsaccadic activity, discharged in the right-EM/wrong-RF task. None of the four that failed had independent postsaccadic activity. 6. The majority (26/40) of visual cells were responsive in the right-EM/wrong-RF task.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Distractor modulation of saccade trajectories: spatial separation and symmetry effects

The trajectories of saccadic eye movements can be modulated by the presence of a competing visual distractor. In the present study the trajectories of vertical saccades curved away from a single visual distractor presented in one visual field, but tended to be straight when two distractors were presented at mirror symmetric locations in both visual fields. The spatial nature of the mirror distractor effect was examined by presenting a second distractor at mirror and non-mirror locations. Saccade trajectories also tended to be straight with both mirror and non-mirror symmetrical distractors. The relationship between the distractor location and saccade curvature was examined in a third experiment by manipulating the distractor-to-target spatial separation. Although there was a tendency for greater curvature when the distractor was presented in the same hemifield as the target there was no clear relationship between curvature and distractor location. The results show that the distractor modulation of saccade trajectory is not highly spatially specific and that it can be balanced by a second bilateral distractor in the opposite visual field. The results are interpreted in terms of a model in which the initial saccade direction and curvature back towards the saccade goal are controlled by separate processes. Initial saccade direction is modulated by the inhibition of distractor locations within a motor map specifying saccade direction. Curvature back towards the saccade goal may be attributed to a feedback system, with a separate representation of the visual target location, that enables an on-line correction of the saccade during mid-flight.     

Spatial updating in area LIP is independent of saccade direction

We explore the world around us by making rapid eye movements to objects of interest. Remarkably, these eye movements go unnoticed, and we perceive the world as stable. Spatial updating is one of the neural mechanisms that contributes to this perception of spatial constancy. Previous studies in macaque lateral intraparietal cortex (area LIP) have shown that individual neurons update, or "remap," the locations of salient visual stimuli at the time of an eye movement. The existence of remapping implies that neurons have access to visual information from regions far beyond the classically defined receptive field. We hypothesized that neurons have access to information located anywhere in the visual field. We tested this by recording the activity of LIP neurons while systematically varying the direction in which a stimulus location must be updated. Our primary finding is that individual neurons remap stimulus traces in multiple directions, indicating that LIP neurons have access to information throughout the visual field. At the population level, stimulus traces are updated in conjunction with all saccade directions, even when we consider direction as a function of receptive field location. These results show that spatial updating in LIP is effectively independent of saccade direction. Our findings support the hypothesis that the activity of LIP neurons contributes to the maintenance of spatial constancy throughout the visual field.     

Comparison of cortico-cortical and cortico-collicular signals for the generation of saccadic eye movements

Many neurons in the frontal eye field (FEF) and lateral intraparietal (LIP) areas of cerebral cortex are active during the visual-motor events preceding the initiation of saccadic eye movements: they respond to visual targets, increase their activity before saccades, and maintain their activity during intervening delay periods. Previous experiments have shown that the output neurons from both LIP and FEF convey the full range of these activities to the superior colliculus (SC) in the brain stem. These areas of cerebral cortex also have strong interconnections, but what signals they convey remains unknown. To determine what these cortico-cortical signals are, we identified the LIP neurons that project to FEF by antidromic activation, and we studied their activity during a delayed-saccade task. We then compared these cortico-cortical signals to those sent subcortically by also identifying the LIP neurons that project to the intermediate layers of the SC. Of 329 FEF projection neurons and 120 SC projection neurons, none were co-activated by both FEF and SC stimulation. FEF projection neurons were encountered more superficially in LIP than SC projection neurons, which is consistent with the anatomical projection of many cortical layer III neurons to other cortical areas and of layer V neurons to subcortical structures. The estimated conduction velocities of FEF projection neurons (16.7 m/s) were significantly slower that those of SC projection neurons (21.7 m/s), indicating that FEF projection neurons have smaller axons. We identified three main differences in the discharge properties of FEF and SC projection neurons: only 44% of the FEF projection neurons changed their activity during the delayed-saccade task compared with 69% of the SC projection neurons; only 17% of the task-related FEF projection neurons showed saccadic activity, whereas 42% of the SC projection neurons showed such increases; 78% of the FEF projection neurons had a visual response but no saccadic activity, whereas only 55% of the SC projection neurons had similar activity. The FEF and SC projection neurons had three similarities: both had visual, delay, and saccadic activity, both had stronger delay and saccadic activity with visually guided than with memory-guided saccades, and both had broadly tuned responses for disparity stimuli, suggesting that their visual receptive fields have a three-dimensional configuration. These observations indicate that the activity carried between parietal and frontal cortical areas conveys a spectrum of signals but that the preponderance of activity conveyed might be more closely related to earlier visual processing than to the later saccadic stages that are directed to the SC.     

Remapping the remembered target location for anti-saccades in human posterior parietal cortex

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the role of the human posterior parietal cortex (PPC) in anti-saccades. To do so, we exploited the laterality of a subregion of the PPC for remembered target location. Using an event-related design, we tracked fMRI signal changes in this region while subjects remembered the location of a flashed target, then were instructed to plan either an anti- or pro-saccade to that location, and finally were instructed to execute the movement. At first, the region responded preferentially to the memory of a target location presented in the contralateral visual field. However, when an anti-cue specified a saccadic response into the opposite visual field, we observed a dynamic shift in cortical activity from one hemisphere to the other. This shows that this region within the human posterior parietal cortex codes the target location for an upcoming saccade, rather than the location of the remembered visual stimulus in an anti-saccade task.     

Inactivation of macaque lateral intraparietal area delays initiation of the second saccade predominantly from contralesional eye positions in a double-saccade task

Previous studies have shown that, although lateral intraparietal (LIP) area neurons have retinotopic receptive fields, the response strength of these cells is modulated by eye position. This combining of retinal and eye position information can form a distributed coding of target locations in a head-centered coordinate frame. Such an implicit head-centered coding offers one mechanism for maintaining spatial stability across eye movements and can be used to compute new oculomotor error vectors after each eye movement. An alternative mechanism is to use eye displacement signals rather than eye position signals to maintain spatial stability. The aim of this study was to distinguish which of these two extra-retinal signals (or perhaps both signals) are employed in a double saccade task, which required the monkey to use extraretinal information associated with the first saccade to localize a remembered target for a second saccade. By varying the direction and the end point of the first saccade and selectively inactivating area LIP in one hemisphere with muscimol injection, we were able to distinguish between the two mechanisms by observing how the second saccade was impaired in this task. The displacement mechanism predicts that, if the first saccade is in the contralesional direction, the second saccade will be impaired, and the end point of the first saccade would not be important. The eye position mechanism predicts that if the first saccade ended in the contralesional head-centered space, the second saccade will be impaired, no matter in which direction the first saccade is made. Results showed that, after area LIP lesion, when the first saccade stepped into the contralesional field, the error rate of the second saccade became higher and the latency longer. However, when the end point of the first saccade was constant, the direction of the first saccade had much less effect on the second saccade. These results suggest that eye position, and not eye displacement, is the more predominant factor in this task. In a different behavioral paradigm, the monkeys performed single visual and memory saccades from different initial eye positions. It was found that the impairment of either the metrics or dynamics of visual and memory saccades did not significantly vary with the different eye positions. It thus appears that the performance of single visual and memory saccades is best described in an oculocentric coordinate frame that does not rely on extraretinal signals. Altogether these results lend further support to the hypothesis that, by combining retinal and eye position signals, area LIP contains concurrent eye-centered and head-centered representations of the visual space. Depending on the task, either representation can be used.     

Reaction times of manual responses to a visual stimulus at the goal of a planned memory-guided saccade in the monkey

Monkeys demonstrate improved contrast sensitivity at the goal of a planned memory-guided saccade (Science 299:81–86, 2003). Such perceptual improvements have been ascribed to an endogenous attentional advantage induced by the saccade plan. Speeded reaction times have also been used as evidence for attention. We therefore asked whether the attentional advantage at the goal of a planned memory-guided saccade led to speeded manual reaction times following probes presented at the saccade goal in a simple detection task. We found that monkeys showed slower manual reaction times when the probe appeared at the memorized goal of the planned saccade when compared to manual reaction times following a probe that appeared opposite the saccade goal. Flashing a distractor at the saccade goal after target presentation appeared to slow reaction times further. Our data, combined with prior results, suggest that a spatially localized inhibition operates on the neural representation of the saccade goal. This inhibition may be closely related or identical to the processes underlying inhibition-of-return. We also found that if the same detection task was interleaved with a difficult perceptual discrimination task, manual reaction times became faster when the probe was at the saccade goal. We interpret these results as being an effect of task difficulty; the more difficult interleaved task may have engaged endogenous attentional resources more effectively, allowing it to override the inhibition at the saccade goal. We construct and discuss a simple working hypothesis for the relationship between the effects of prior attention on neural activity in salience maps and on performance in detection and discrimination tasks.     

Hypometric primary saccades of schizophrenics in a delayed-response task

In this study, the execution of delayed saccades in 15 DSM-III-R-schizophrenic patients and 15 normal subjects was investigated. While looking at a central fixation cross, a peripheral target was randomly presented at 10° eccentricity. Subjects were instructed to saccade to the target when the fixation cross was switched off after 500 ms. Two experiments were conducted: (a) a delayed-saccade task and, (b) a memoryguided saccade task, that is, the peripheral target was switched off together with the fixation cross. In the delayed-saccade task, amplitudes of regular saccades did not differ between schizophrenic patients and normals. In the memory-guided saccade task, schizophrenic subjects showed marked hypometric saccades. Incorrect delayed saccades (while the fixation cross was on) were also hypometric in schizophrenics, but not in normal controls. The final eye position, i.e., the position reached after the execution of correction saccades, however, did not differ between patients and controls. This means that schizophrenics show a deficit in the programming of primary saccades, if the fixation point and the peripheral target are (a) both visually presented or (b) both memorized. The results support the hypothesis that these saccades are the result of an averaging effect between the fixation point and the peripheral target. It is further hypothesized that these deficits might be explained by a lack of prefrontal inhibition of ocular fixation areas.