Suppression of visually and memory-guided saccades induced by electrical stimulation of the monkey frontal eye field. I. Suppression of ipsilateral saccades

When a saccade occurs to an interesting object, visual fixation holds its image on the fovea and suppresses saccades to other objects. Electrical stimulation of the frontal eye field (FEF) has been reported to elicit saccades, and recently also to suppress saccades. This study was performed to characterize properties of the suppression of visually guided (Vsacs) and memory-guided saccades (Msacs) induced by electrical stimulation of the FEF in trained monkeys. For any given stimulation site, we determined the threshold for electrically evoked saccades (Esacs) at < or =50 microA and then examined suppressive effects of stimulation at the same site on Vsacs and Msacs. FEF stimulation suppressed the initiation of both Vsacs and Msacs during and about 50 ms after stimulation at stimulus intensities lower than those for eliciting Esacs, but did not affect the vector of these saccades. Suppression occurred for ipsiversive but not contraversive saccades, and more strongly for saccades with larger amplitudes and those with initial eye positions shifted more in the saccadic direction. The most effective stimulation timing for suppression was about 50 ms before saccade onset, which suggests that suppression occurred in the efferent pathway for generating Vsacs at the premotor rather than the motoneuronal level, most probably in the superior colliculus and/or the paramedian pontine reticular formation. Suppression sites of ipsilateral saccades were distributed over the classical FEF where saccade-related movement neurons were observed. The results suggest that the FEF may play roles in not only generating contraversive saccades but also maintaining visual fixation by suppressing ipsiversive saccades.     

Suppression of visually and memory-guided saccades induced by electrical stimulation of the monkey frontal eye field. II. Suppression of bilateral saccades

To understand the neural mechanism of fixation, we investigated effects of electrical stimulation of the frontal eye field (FEF) and its vicinity on visually guided (Vsacs) and memory-guided saccades (Msacs) in trained monkeys and found that there were two types of suppression induced by the electrical stimulation: suppression of ipsilateral saccades and suppression of bilateral saccades. In this report, we characterized the properties of the suppression of bilateral Vsacs and Msacs. Stimulation of the bilateral suppression sites suppressed the initiation of both Vsacs and Msacs in all directions during and approximately 50 ms after stimulation but did not affect the vector of these saccades. The suppression was stronger for ipsiversive larger saccades and contraversive smaller saccades, and saccades with initial eye positions shifted more in the saccadic direction. The most effective stimulation timing for the suppression of ipsilateral and contralateral Vsacs was approximately 40-50 ms before saccade onset, indicating that the suppression occurred most likely in the superior colliculus and/or the paramedian pontine reticular formation. Suppression sites of bilateral saccades were located in the prearcuate gyrus facing the inferior arcuate sulcus where stimulation induced suppression at < or =40 microA but usually did not evoke any saccades at 80 microA and were different from those of ipsilateral saccades where stimulation evoked saccades at < or =50 microA. The bilateral suppression sites contained fixation neurons. The results suggest that fixation neurons in the bilateral suppression area of the FEF may play roles in maintaining fixation by suppressing saccades in all directions.     

Errors of memory-guided saccades in humans with lesions of the frontal eye field and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Behavioral studies in monkeys and humans suggest that systematic and variable errors of memory-guided saccades reflect distinct neuronal computations in primate spatial memory. We recorded memory-guided saccades with a 2-s delay in three patients with unilateral ischemic lesions of the frontal eye field and in three patients with unilateral ischemic lesions of the frontal eye field and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Results suggest that systematic errors of memory-guided saccades originate in the frontal eye field and variable errors in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. These data are the first human lesion data to support the hypothesis that these regions provide functionally distinct contributions to spatial short-term memory.     

The effects of frontal eye field and dorsomedial frontal cortex lesions on visually guided eye movements

In the frontal lobe of primates, two areas play a role in visually guided eye movements: the frontal eye fields (FEF) and the medial eye fields (MEF) in dorsomedial frontal cortex. Previously, FEF lesions have revealed only mild deficits in saccadic eye movements that recovered rapidly. Deficits in eye movements after MEF ablation have not been shown. We report the effects of ablating these areas singly or in combination, using tests in which animals were trained to make saccadic eye movements to paired or multiple targets presented at various temporal asynchronies. FEF lesions produced large and long-lasting deficits on both tasks. Sequences of eye movements made to successively presented targets were also impaired. Much smaller deficits were observed after MEF lesions. Our findings indicate a major, long-lasting loss in temporal ordering and processing speed for visually guided saccadic eye movement generation after FEF lesions and a significant but smaller and shorter-lasting loss after MEF lesions.     

Interactions between visually and electrically elicited saccades before and after superior colliculus and frontal eye field ablations in the rhesus monkey

Recent work has shown that humans and monkeys utilize both retinal error and eye position signals to compute the direction and amplitude of saccadic eye movements (Hallett and Lightstone 1976a, b; Mays and Sparks 1980b). The aim of this study was to examine the role the frontal eye fields (FEF) and the superior colliculi (SC) play in this computation. Rhesus monkeys were trained to acquire small, briefly flashed spots of light with saccadic eye movements. During the latency period between target extinction and saccade initiation, their eyes were displaced, in total darkness, by electrical stimulation of either the FEF, the SC or the abducens nucleus area. Under such conditions animals compensated for the electrically induced ocular displacement and correctly reached the visual target area, suggesting that both a retinal error and eye position error signal were computed. The amplitude and direction of the electrically induced saccades depended not only on the site stimulated but also on the amplitude and direction of the eye movement initiated by the animal to acquire the target. When the eye movements initiated by the animal coincided with the saccades initiated by electrical stimulation, the resultant saccade was the weighted average of the two, where one weighing factor was the intensity of the electrical stimulus. Animals did not acquire targets correctly when their eyes were displaced, prior to their intended eye movements, by stimulating in the abducens nucleus area. After bilateral ablation of either the FEF or the SC monkeys were still able to acquire visual targets when their eyes were displaced, prior to saccade initiation, by electrical stimulation of the remaining intact structure. These results suggest that neither the FEF nor the SC is uniquely responsible for the combined computation of the retinal error and the eye position error signals.     

Effect of inactivation of the cortical frontal eye field on saccades generated in a choice response paradigm

Previous studies using muscimol inactivations in the frontal eye fields (FEFs) have shown that saccades generated by recall from working memory are eliminated by these lesions, whereas visually guided saccades are relatively spared. In these experiments, we made reversible inactivations in FEFs in alert macaque monkeys and examined the effect on saccades in a choice response task. Our task required monkeys to learn arbitrary pairings between colored stimuli and saccade direction. Following inactivations, the percentage of choice errors increased as a function of the number of alternative (NA) pairings. In contrast, the percentage of dysmetric saccades (saccades that landed in the correct quadrant but were inaccurate) did not vary with NA. Saccade latency increased postlesion but did not increase with NA. We also made simultaneous inactivations in both FEFs. The results following bilateral lesions showed approximately twice as many choice errors. We conclude that the FEFs are involved in the generation of saccades in choice response tasks. The dramatic effect of NA on choice errors, but the lack of an effect of NA on motor errors or response latency, suggests that two types of processing are interrupted by FEF lesions. The first involves the formation of a saccadic intention vector from associate memory inputs, and the second, the execution of the saccade from the intention vector. An alternative interpretation of the first result is that a role of the FEFs may be to suppress incorrect responses. The doubling of choice errors following bilateral FEF lesions suggests that the effect of unilateral lesions is not caused by a general inhibition of the lesioned side by the intact side.     

Reversible inactivation of macaque dorsomedial frontal cortex: effects on saccades and fixations

 Neural recording and electrical stimulation results suggest that the dorsomedial frontal cortex (DMFC) of macaque is involved in oculomotor behavior. We reversibly inactivated the DMFC using lidocaine and examined how saccadic eye movements and fixations were affected. The inactivation methods and monkeys were the same as those used in a previous study of the frontal eye field (FEF), another frontal oculomotor region. In the first stage of the present study, monkeys performed tasks that required the generation of single saccades and fixations. During 15 DMFC inactivations, we found only mild, infrequent deficits. This contrasts with our prior finding that FEF inactivation causes severe, reliable deficits in performance of these tasks. In the second stage of the study, we investigated whether DMFC inactivation affected behavior when a monkey was required to make more than one saccade and fixation. We used a double-step task: two targets were flashed in rapid succession and the monkey had to make two saccades to foveate the target locations. In each of five experiments, DMFC inactivation caused a moderate, significant deficit. Both ipsi- and contraversive saccades were disrupted. In two experiments, the first saccades were made to the wrong place and had increased latencies. In one experiment, first saccades were unaffected, but second saccades were made to the wrong place and had increased latencies. In the remaining two experiments, specific reasons for the deficit were not detected. Saline infusions into DMFC had no effect. Inactivation of FEF caused a larger double-step deficit than did inactivation of DMFC. The FEF inactivation impaired contraversive first or second saccades of the sequence. In conclusion, our results suggest that the DMFC makes an important contribution to generating sequential saccades and fixations but not single saccades and fixations. Compared with the FEF, the DMFC has a weaker, less directional, more task-dependent oculomotor influence. Received: 12 January 1998 / Accepted: 17 July 1998     

Reversible inactivation of macaque frontal eye field

 The macaque frontal eye field (FEF) is involved in the generation of saccadic eye movements and fixations. To better understand the role of the FEF, we reversibly inactivated a portion of it while a monkey made saccades and fixations in response to visual stimuli. Lidocaine was infused into a FEF and neural inactivation was monitored with a nearby microelectrode. We used two saccadic tasks. In the delay task, a target was presented and then extinguished, but the monkey was not allowed to make a saccade to its location until a cue to move was given. In the step task, the monkey was allowed to look at a target as soon as it appeared. During FEF inactivation, monkeys were severely impaired at making saccades to locations of extinguished contralateral targets in the delay task. They were similarly impaired at making saccades to locations of contralateral targets in the step task if the target was flashed for ≤100 ms, such that it was gone before the saccade was initiated. Deficits included increases in saccadic latency, increases in saccadic error, and increases in the frequency of trials in which a saccade was not made. We varied the initial fixation location and found that the impairment specifically affected contraversive saccades rather than affecting all saccades made into head-centered contralateral space. Monkeys were impaired only slightly at making saccades to contralateral targets in the step task if the target duration was 1000 ms, such that the target was present during the saccade: latency increased, but increases in saccadic error were mild and increases in the frequency of trials in which a saccade was not made were insignificant. During FEF inactivation there usually was a direct correlation between the latency and the error of saccades made in response to contralateral targets. In the delay task, FEF inactivation increased the frequency of making premature saccades to ipsilateral targets. FEF inactivation had inconsistent and mild effects on saccadic peak velocity. FEF inactivation caused impairments in the ability to fixate lights steadily in contralateral space. FEF inactivation always caused an ipsiversive deviation of the eyes in darkness. In summary, our results suggest that the FEF plays major roles in (1) generating contraversive saccades to locations of extinguished or flashed targets, (2) maintaining contralateral fixations, and (3) suppressing inappropriate ipsiversive saccades. Received: 2 February 1996 / Accepted: 26 February 1997     

Neuronal activity related to visually guided saccades in the frontal eye fields of rhesus monkeys: comparison with supplementary eye fields.

1. The purpose of this study was to analyze the response properties of neurons in the frontal eye fields (FEF) of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and to compare and contrast the various functional classes with those recorded in the supplementary eye fields (SEF) of the same animals performing the same go/no-go visual tracking task. Three hundred ten cells recorded in FEF provided the data for this investigation. 2. Visual cells in FEF responded to the stimuli that guided the eye movements. The visual cells in FEF responded with a slightly shorter latency and were more consistent and phasic in their activation than their counterparts in SEF. The receptive fields tended to emphasize the contralateral hemifield to the same extent as those observed in SEF visual cells. 3. Preparatory set cells began to discharge after the presentation of the target and ceased firing before the saccade, after the go/no-go cue was given. These neurons comprised a smaller proportion in FEF than in SEF. In contrast to their counterparts in SEF, the preparatory set cells in FEF did not respond preferentially in relation to contralateral movements, even though most responded preferentially for movements in one particular direction. The time course of the discharge of the FEF set cells was similar to that of their SEF counterparts, except that they reached their peak level of activation sooner. The few preparatory set cells in FEF tested with both auditory and visual stimuli tended to respond preferentially to the visual targets, whereas, in contrast, most set cells in SEF were bimodal. 4. Sensory-movement cells represented the largest population of cells recorded in FEF, responding in relation to both the presentation of the targets and the execution of the saccade. Although some of these sensory-movement cells resembled their counterparts in SEF by exhibiting a sustained elevation of activity, most of the FEF sensory-movement cells gave two discrete bursts, one after the presentation of the target and another before and during the saccade. Like their counterparts in SEF, the sensory-movement cells tended to be tuned for saccades into the contralateral hemifield, but this tendency was more pronounced in FEF than in SEF. The FEF sensory-movement cells discharged more briskly, with a shorter latency relative to the presentation of the target, than their counterparts in SEF. In addition, the FEF sensory-movement neurons reached their peak activation sooner than SEF sensory-movement neurons. Most FEF sensory-movement cells exhibited different patterns of activation in response to visual and auditory targets.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

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.     

Contribution of the frontal eye field to gaze shifts in the head-unrestrained monkey: effects of microstimulation

The role of the primate frontal eye field (FEF) has been inferred primarily from experiments investigating saccadic eye movements with the head restrained. Three recent reports investigating head-unrestrained gaze shifts disagree on whether head movements are evoked with FEF stimulation and thus whether the FEF participates in gaze movement commands. We therefore examined the eye, head, and overall gaze movement evoked by low-intensity microstimulation of the low-threshold region of the FEF in two head-unrestrained monkeys. Microstimulation applied at 200 or 350 Hz for 200 ms evoked large gaze shifts with substantial head movement components from most sites in the dorsomedial FEF, but evoked small, predominantly eye-only gaze shifts from ventrolateral sites. The size and direction of gaze and eye movements were strongly affected by the eye position before stimulation. Head movements exhibited little position dependency, but at some sites and initial eye positions, head-only movements were evoked. Stimulus-evoked gaze shifts and their eye and head components resembled those elicited naturally by visual targets. With stimulus train durations >200 ms, the evoked gaze shifts were more likely to be accomplished with a substantial head movement, which often continued for the entire stimulus duration. The amplitude, duration and peak velocity of the evoked head movement were more strongly correlated with stimulus duration than were those of the gaze or eye movements. We conclude that the dorsomedial FEF generates a gaze command signal that can produce eye, head, or combined eye-head movement depending on the initial orbital position of the eye.     

Incomplete suppression of distractor-related activity in the frontal eye field results in curved saccades

Saccades in the presence of distractors show significant trajectory curvature. Based on previous work in the superior colliculus (SC), we speculated that curvature arises when a movement is initiated before competition between the target and distractor goals has been fully resolved. To test this hypothesis, we recorded frontal eye field (FEF) activity for curved and straight saccades in search. In contrast to the SC, activity in FEF is normally poorly correlated with saccade dynamics. However, the FEF, like the SC, is involved in target selection. Thus if curvature is caused by incomplete target selection, we expect to see its neural correlates in the FEF. We found that saccades that curve toward a distractor are accompanied by an increase in perisaccadic activity of FEF neurons coding the distractor location, and saccades that curve away are accompanied by a decrease in activity. In contrast, for FEF neurons coding the target location, there is no significant difference in activity between curved and straight saccades. To establish that the distractor-related activity is causally related to saccade curvature, we applied microstimulation to sites in the FEF before saccades to targets presented without distractors. The stimulation was subthreshold for evoking saccades and the temporal structure of the stimulation train resembled the activity recorded for curved saccades. The resulting movements curved toward the location coded by the stimulation site. These results support the idea that saccade curvature results from incomplete suppression of distractor-related activity during target selection.     

Primate frontal eye fields. I. Single neurons discharging before saccades

We studied the activity of single neurons in the frontal eye fields of awake macaque monkeys trained to perform several oculomotor tasks. Fifty-four percent of neurons discharged before visually guided saccades. Three different types of presaccadic activity were observed: visual, movement, and anticipatory. Visual activity occurred in response to visual stimuli whether or not the monkey made saccades. Movement activity preceded purposive saccades, even those made without visual targets. Anticipatory activity preceded even the cue to make a saccade if the monkey could reliably predict what saccade he had to make. These three different activities were found in different presaccadic cells in different proportions. Forty percent of presaccadic cells had visual activity (visual cells) but no movement activity. For about half of the visual cells the response was enhanced if the monkey made saccades to the receptive-field stimulus, but there was no discharge before similar saccades made without visual targets. Twenty percent of presaccadic neurons discharged as briskly before purposive saccades made without a visual target as they did before visually guided saccades, and had weak or absent visual responses. These cells were defined as movement cells. Movement cells discharged much less or not at all before saccades made spontaneously without a task requirement or an overt visual target. The remaining presaccadic neurons (40%) had both visual and movement activity (visuomovement cells). They discharged most briskly before visually guided eye movements, but also discharged before purposive eye movements made in darkness and responded to visual stimuli in the absence of saccades. There was a continuum of visuomovement cells, from cells in which visual activity predominated to cells in which movement activity predominated. This continuum suggests that although visual cells are quite distinct from movement cells, the division of cell types into three classes may be only a heuristic means of describing the processing flow from visual input to eye-movement output. Twenty percent of visuomovement and movement cells, but fewer than 2% of visual cells, had anticipatory activity. Only one cell had anticipatory activity as its sole response. When the saccade was delayed relative to the target onset, visual cells responded to the target appearance, movement cells discharged before the saccade, and visuomovement cells discharged in different ways during the delay, usually with some discharge following the target and an increase in rate immediately before the saccade. Presaccadic neurons of all types were actively suppressed following a saccade into their response fields.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Shift in saccadic direction induced in humans by proprioceptive manipulation: a comparison between memory-guided and visually guided saccades

It is nowadays generally recognized that saccades to remembered targets are planned in a craniotopic frame of reference by combining retinal input with eye position signal. The origin of the eye position signal is still a matter of controversy, however. Does it arise from an efferent copy or is it supplied by the sensory receptors with which the extraocular muscles are endowed? When applied to skeletal muscles, vibration elicits spindle responses simulating a stretching of the vibrated muscle. When vibration is applied to the inferior rectus muscle (IR), it induces the illusion that a stationary fixating point is moving upward. Here we attempted to change the initial eye position signal supplied to the oculomotor system before a memory- or visuo-guided saccade to a 10° left target by applying mechanical vibration to the IR muscle. We wanted to determine whether modifying extraocular proprioceptive cues during the programming phase of a saccade might affect the latter's trajectory. In the memory-guided condition, it was observed that the saccades ended lower down when vibration was applied than in the control condition. Conversely, the visuo-guided saccades were not affected by the vibration. The above results mean first that extraocular proprioceptive cues are used as an initial eye position signal when a memory guided saccade has to be planned. Secondly, they suggest that extraocular proprioception may not be used to produce a visuo-guided saccade, or that this type of saccade is computed solely on the basis of retinal cues.     

Electrical stimulation of the frontal eye field in a monkey produces combined eye and head movements

The frontal eye field (FEF), an area in the primate frontal lobe, has long been considered important for the production of eye movements. Past studies have evoked saccade-like movements from the FEF using electrical stimulation in animals that were not allowed to move their heads. Using electrical stimulation in two monkeys that were free to move their heads, we have found that the FEF produces gaze shifts that are composed of both eye and head movements. Repeated stimulation at a site evoked gaze shifts of roughly constant amplitude. However, that gaze shift could be accomplished with varied amounts of head and eye movements, depending on their (head and eye) respective starting positions. This evidence suggests that the FEF controls visually orienting movements using both eye and head rotations rather than just shifting the eyes as previously thought.     

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.

Activity of monkey frontal eye field neurons projecting to oculomotor regions of the pons.

1. This study identified neurons in the rhesus monkey's frontal eye field that projected to oculomotor regions of the pons and characterized the signals sent by these neurons from frontal eye field to pons. 2. In two behaving rhesus monkeys, frontal eye field neurons projecting to the pons were identified via antidromic excitation by a stimulating microelectrode whose tip was centered in or near the omnipause region of the pontine raphe. This stimulation site corresponded to the nucleus raphe interpositus (RIP). In addition, electrical stimulation of the frontal eye field was used to demonstrate the effects of frontal eye field input on neurons in the omnipause region and surrounding paramedian pontine reticular formation (PPRF). 3. Twenty-five corticopontine neurons were identified and characterized. Most frontal eye field neurons projecting to the pons were either movement neurons, firing in association with saccadic eye movements (48%), or foveal neurons responsive to visual stimulation of the fovea combined with activity related to fixation (28%). Corticopontine movement neurons fired before, during, and after saccades made within a restricted movement field. 4. The activity of identified corticopontine neurons was very similar to the activity of neurons antidromically excited from the superior colliculus where 59% had movement related activity, and 22% had foveal and fixation related activity. 5. High-intensity, short-duration electrical stimulation of the frontal eye field caused omnipause neurons to stop firing. The cessation in firing appeared to be immediate, within < or = 5 ms. The time that the omnipause neuron remained quiet depended on the intensity of the cortical stimulus and lasted up to 30 ms after a train of three stimulus pulses lasting a total of 6 ms at an intensity of 1,000 microA. Low-intensity, longer duration electrical stimuli (24 pulses, 75 microA, 70 ms) traditionally used to evoke saccades from the frontal eye field were also followed by a cessation in omnipause neuron firing, but only after a delay of approximately 30 ms. For these stimuli, the omnipause neuron resumed firing when the stimulus was turned off. 6. The same stimuli that caused omnipause neurons to stop firing excited burst neurons in the PPRF. The latency to excitation ranged from 4.2 to 9.8 ms, suggesting that there is at least one additional neuron between frontal eye field neurons and burst neurons in the PPRF. 7. The present study confirms and extends the results of previous work, with the use of retrograde and anterograde tracers, demonstrating direct projections from the frontal eye field to the pons.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)