scholarly journals Primate Antisaccade. II. Supplementary Eye Field Neuronal Activity Predicts Correct Performance

2004 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 1672-1689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelly Amador ◽  
Madeleine Schlag-Rey ◽  
John Schlag
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Single Neuron ◽  
Peripheral Stimulus ◽  
Visual Responses ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Individual Trial ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Saccade Task ◽  
Anti Saccades ◽  
Initial Instruction

Neuronal activities were recorded in the supplementary eye field (SEF) of 3 macaque monkeys trained to perform antisaccades pseudorandomly interleaved with prosaccades, as instructed by the shape of a central fixation point. The prosaccade goal was indicated by a peripheral stimulus flashed anywhere on the screen, whereas the antisaccade goal was an unmarked site diametrically opposite the flashed stimulus. The visual cue was given immediately after the instruction cue disappeared in the immediate-saccade task, or during the instruction period in the delayed-saccade task. The instruction cue offset was the saccade gosignal. Here we focus on 92 task-related neurons: visual, eye-movement, and instruction/fixation neurons. We found that 73% of SEF eye-movement–related neurons fired significantly more before anti-saccades than prosaccades. This finding was analyzed at 3 levels: population, single neuron, and individual trial. On individual antisaccade trials, 40 ms before saccade, the firing rate of eye-movement–related neurons was highly predictive of successful performance. A similar analysis of visual responses (40 ms astride the peak) gave less-coherent results. Fixation neurons, activated during the initial instruction period (i.e., after the instruction cue but before the stimulus) always fired more on antisaccade than on prosaccade trials. This trend, however, was statistically significant for only half of these neurons. We conclude that the SEF is critically involved in the production of antisaccades.

Visually guided saccade versus eye-hand reach: contrasting neuronal activity in the cortical supplementary and frontal eye fields

1996 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 2187-2191 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Mushiake ◽  
N. Fujii ◽  
J. Tanji
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Neuronal Activity ◽  
Motor Task ◽  
Oculomotor Control ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Frontal Eye Fields ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movement ◽  
Visually Guided ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field

1. We studied neuronal activity in the supplementary eye field (SEF) and frontal eye field (FEF) of a monkey during performance of a conditional motor task that required capturing of a target either with a saccadic eye movement (the saccade-only condition) or with an eye-hand reach (the saccade-and-reach condition), according to visual instructions. 2. Among 106 SEF neurons that showed presaccadic activity, more than one-half of them (54%) were active preferentially under the saccade-only condition (n = 12) or under the saccade-and-reach condition (n = 45), while the remaining 49 neurons were equally active in both conditions. 3. By contrast, most (97%) of the 109 neurons in the FEF exhibited approximately equal activity in relation to saccades under the two conditions. 4. The present results suggest the possibility that SEF neurons, at least in part, are involved in signaling whether the motor task is oculomotor or combined eye-arm movements, whereas FEF neurons are mostly related to oculomotor control.

scholarly journals Supplementary Eye Field: Keeping an Eye on Eye Movement

2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. R416-R418 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.H.S. Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field

Macaque SEF Neurons Encode Object-Centered Directions of Eye Movements Regardless of the Visual Attributes of Instructional Cues

1999 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 2340-2346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl R. Olson ◽  
Sonya N. Gettner
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Macaque Monkey ◽  
Direction Selectivity ◽  
Visual Attributes ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
The Right

Macaque SEF neurons encode object-centered directions of eye movements regardless of the visual attributes of instructional cues. Neurons in the supplementary eye field (SEF) of the macaque monkey exhibit object-centered direction selectivity in the context of a task in which a spot flashed on the right or left end of a sample bar instructs a monkey to make an eye movement to the right or left end of a target bar. To determine whether SEF neurons are selective for the location of the cue, as defined relative to the sample bar, or, alternatively, for the location of the target, as defined relative to the target bar, we carried out recording while monkeys performed a new task. In this task, the color of a cue-spot instructed the monkey to which end of the target bar an eye movement should be made (blue for the left end and yellow for the right end). Object-centered direction selectivity persisted under this condition, indicating that neurons are selective for the location of the target relative to the target bar. However, object-centered signals developed at a longer latency (by ∼200 ms) when the instruction was conveyed by color than when it was conveyed by the location of a spot on a sample bar.

Trajectory Interpretation by Supplementary Eye Field Neurons During Ocular Baseball

2005 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 1385-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Guk Kim ◽  
Jeremy B. Badler ◽  
Stephen J. Heinen
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Neuronal Activity ◽  
Target Motion ◽  
Moving Object ◽  
Movement Initiation ◽  
Sensory Signals ◽  
Task Rule ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field

Good performance in the sport of baseball shows that humans can determine the trajectory of a moving object and act on it under the constraint of a rule. We report here on neuronal activity in the supplementary eye field (SEF) of monkeys performing an eye movement task inspired by baseball. In “ocular baseball,” a pursuit eye movement to a target is executed or withheld based on the target’s trajectory. We found that a subset of neurons in the SEF interpreted the trajectory according to the task rule. Other neurons specified at a later time the command to pursue the target with the eyes. The results suggest that the SEF can interpret sensory signals about target motion in the context of a rule to guide voluntary eye movement initiation.

scholarly journals Contrasting the roles of the supplementary and frontal eye fields in ocular decision making

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (12) ◽  
pp. 2644-2655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shun-nan Yang ◽  
Stephen Heinen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Single Neuron ◽  
Delay Period ◽  
Neuron Activity ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Unit Recording ◽  
Task Rule ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Single Neuron Activity

Single-unit recording in monkeys and functional imaging of the human frontal lobe indicate that the supplementary eye field (SEF) and the frontal eye field (FEF) are involved in ocular decision making. To test whether these structures have distinct roles in decision making, single-neuron activity was recorded from each structure while monkeys executed an ocular go/nogo task. The task rule is to pursue a moving target if it intersects a visible square or “go zone.” We found that most SEF neurons showed differential go/nogo activity during the delay period, before the target intersected the go zone (delay period), whereas most FEF neurons did so after target intersection, during the period in which the movement was executed (movement period). Choice probability (CP) for SEF neurons was high in the delay period but decreased in the movement period, whereas for FEF neurons it was low in the delay period and increased in the movement period. Directional selectivity of SEF neurons was low throughout the trial, whereas that of FEF neurons was highest in the delay period, decreasing later in the trial. Increasing task difficulty led to later discrimination between go and nogo in both structures and lower CP in the SEF, but it did not affect CP in the FEF. The results suggest that the SEF interprets the task rule early but is less involved in executing the motor decision than is the FEF and that these two areas collaborate dynamically to execute ocular decisions.

Corticocortical input to the smooth and saccadic eye movement subregions of the frontal eye field in Cebus monkeys

1996 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 2754-2771 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Tian ◽  
J. C. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Adjacent Area ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movement ◽  
Temporal Area ◽  
Macaque Monkeys ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Cebus Monkeys ◽  
The One

1. The locations and connections of the smooth and saccadic eye movement subregions of the frontal eye field (FEFsem and FEFsac, respectively) were investigated in seven hemispheres of five Cebus monkeys. The supplementary eye field was also mapped in seven hemispheres and the hand/arm regions of the dorsal and ventral premotor areas were localized in five hemispheres. Monkeys were immobilized during experiments with Telazol, a dissociative anesthetic agent that has no significant effect on microstimulation-induced eye movement parameters (threshold, velocity, and duration). The functional subregions were defined with the use of low threshold intracortical microstimulation (current < or = 50 microA). Then different retrogradely transported fluorescent tracers were placed into these functionally defined regions. 2. The FEFsac in Cebus monkey is in the same location as the one in macaque monkeys, which is in Walker's areas 8a and 45. The FEFsem is located in the posterior shoulder of the superior arcuate sulcus near its medial tip and is therefore more accessible for tracer injections than the one in macaque monkeys. This subregion is within cytoarchitectural area 6a beta, which is distinct from the adjacent area 6a alpha (dorsal premotor area). This smooth eye movement subregion may be comparable with the one in macaque monkeys. 3. Cortical connection patterns of the FEFsac and FEFsem are similar and parallel to each other. The predominant neural input to these two subregions originates in other cortical eye fields, including the supplementary eye field, the parietal eye field, the middle superior temporal area, and the principal sulcus region. These cortical eye fields each contain two separate, almost non-overlapping, distributions of labeled neurons that project to the corresponding frontal eye field (FEF) subregions. These results suggest that there may be similar, but relatively independent, parallel corticocortical networks to control pursuit and saccadic eye movements. The weak connections between the middle temporal area (MT) and FEF suggest that the MT may not provide the major source of visuomotion inputs to the FEF, but that it rather plays a role in mediating visual information that is relayed from the striate and extrastriate cortices via MT to the parietal cortex and then to the FEF. In addition to the well-known neural connections between the lateral intraparietal area and the FEF, additional parietal projections have been demonstrated from the dorsomedial visual area area specifically to the FEFsac and from area 7m specifically to the FEFsem.

Frontoparietal Activation With Preparation for Antisaccades

2007 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 1751-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. G. Brown ◽  
Tutis Vilis ◽  
Stefan Everling
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Peripheral Stimulus ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field

Several current models hold that frontoparietal areas exert cognitive control by biasing task-relevant processing in other brain areas. Previous event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have compared prosaccades and antisaccades, which require subjects to look toward or away from a flashed peripheral stimulus, respectively. These studies found greater activation for antisaccades in frontal and parietal regions at the ends of long (≥6 s) preparatory periods preceding peripheral stimulus presentation. Event-related fMRI studies using short preparatory periods (≤4 s) have not found such activation differences except in the frontal eye field. Here, we identified activation differences associated with short (1-s) preparatory periods by interleaving half trials among regular whole trials in a rapid fMRI design. On whole trials, a colored fixation dot instructed human subjects to make either a prosaccade toward or an antisaccade away from a peripheral visual stimulus. Half trials included only the instruction and not peripheral stimulus presentation or saccade generation. Nonetheless, half trials evoked stronger activation on antisaccades than on prosaccades in the frontal eye field (FEF), supplementary eye field (SEF), left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), and precuneus. Greater antisaccade response-related activation was found in FEF, SEF, IPS, and precuneus but not in DLPFC or ACC. These results demonstrate greater preparatory activation for antisaccades versus prosaccades in frontoparietal areas and suggest that prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex are more involved in presetting the saccade network for the antisaccade task than generating the actual antisaccade response.

Impact of Experience on the Representation of Object-Centered Space in the Macaque Supplementary Eye Field

2007 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 2159-2173 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Moorman ◽  
Carl R. Olson
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movement ◽  
Spatial Selectivity ◽  
Match To Sample ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Neural Representations ◽  
Primate Brain ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Use Of An Object

Many neurons in the macaque supplementary eye field (SEF) exhibit object-centered spatial selectivity, firing at different rates when the monkey plans a saccade to the left or right end of a horizontal bar. Is this property natural to the SEF or is it a product of specialized training in the laboratory? To answer this question, we monitored the activity of single SEF neurons in two monkeys before and after training to select eye-movement targets by an object-centered rule. During stage 1, the monkeys performed a color delayed-match-to-sample (DMS) task in which a red or green central cue dictated an eye movement to the matching end of a horizontal bar. Many neurons at this stage exhibited object-centered spatial selectivity. During stage 2, the monkeys performed a color-conditional object-centered task in which a green or red central cue instructed an eye movement to the left or right end of a gray bar. More neurons exhibited object-centered spatial selectivity during this stage than during stage 1. During stage 3, the monkeys again performed the color DMS task. The fraction of neurons exhibiting object-centered spatial selectivity remained at a level comparable to that observed during stage 2 and above that observed during stage 1. Thus object-centered spatial selectivity was present before training on an object-centered rule, was enhanced as a product of object-centered training, and outlasted active use of an object-centered rule. We conclude that neural representations of object-centered space, naturally present in the primate brain, can be sharpened by training.

Neuronal Activity in Macaque Supplementary Eye Field During Planning of Saccades in Response to Pattern and Spatial Cues

2000 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 1369-1384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl R. Olson ◽  
Sonya N. Gettner ◽  
Valérie Ventura ◽  
Roberto Carta ◽  
Robert E. Kass
Keyword(s):  
Neuronal Activity ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Motor Preparation ◽  
Spatial Cues ◽  
Target Pattern ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Eye Field ◽  
Saccade Task ◽  
Arousal Response

The aim of this study was to determine whether neuronal activity in the macaque supplementary eye field (SEF) is influenced by the rule used for saccadic target selection. Two monkeys were trained to perform a variant of the memory-guided saccade task in which any of four visible dots (rightward, upward, leftward, and downward) could be the target. On each trial, the cue identifying the target was either a spot flashed in superimposition on the target (spatial condition) or a foveally presented digitized image associated with the target (pattern condition). Trials conforming to the two conditions were interleaved randomly. On recording from 439 SEF neurons, we found that two aspects of neuronal activity were influenced by the nature of the cue. 1) Activity reflecting the direction of the impending response developed more rapidly following spatial than following pattern cues. 2) Activity throughout the delay period tended to be higher following pattern than following spatial cues. We consider these findings in relation to the possible involvement of the SEF in processes underlying attention, arousal, response-selection, and motor preparation.

Chronometry of Visual Responses in Frontal Eye Field, Supplementary Eye Field, and Anterior Cingulate Cortex

2005 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 2086-2092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Pouget ◽  
Erik E. Emeric ◽  
Veit Stuphorn ◽  
Kate Reis ◽  
Jeffrey D. Schall
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Anterior Cingulate ◽  
Frontal Eye Field ◽  
Visual Response ◽  
Visual Responses ◽  
Supplementary Eye Field ◽  
Latency Variability ◽  
Eye Field

The latency and variability of latency of single-unit responses to identical visual stimulation were measured in the frontal eye field (FEF), supplementary eye field (SEF), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) of macaque monkeys performing visually guided saccades. The mean visual response latency was significantly shorter in FEF (64 ms) than in SEF (81 ms) or ACC (100 ms), and latency values determined by four methods agreed. The latency variability of the visual response was respectively less in FEF (21 ms) than in SEF (37 ms) or ACC (41 ms). Latency, variability of latency, and magnitude of the visual responses were correlated within FEF and SEF but not ACC. These characteristics of the visual response are consistent with the degree of convergence of visual afferents to these areas and constrain hypotheses about visual processing in the frontal lobe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document