scholarly journals Predicting manual reaction time to visual motion by temporal integrator model of meg response

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
pp. 844-844
Author(s):  
K. Amano ◽  
S. Nishida ◽  
Y. Ohtani ◽  
N. Goda ◽  
Y. Ejima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Temporal Integrator ◽  
Integrator Model ◽  
Manual Reaction Time

Unwanted reflex-like saccades in visual extinction patients

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Fanini ◽  
Carlo Alberto Marzi
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Time Task ◽  
Right Hemisphere Damage ◽  
Visual Extinction ◽  
Manual Reaction Time

We studied patients with left visual extinction following right hemisphere damage in a simple manual reaction time task using brief visual stimuli. With unilateral lateralized stimuli the patients showed a high proportion of unwanted, reflex-like saccades to either side of stimulation. In contrast, with bilateral stimuli there was an overall decrease in the proportion of unwanted saccades, and the vast majority of them were directed toward the ipsilesional side. The implications of these results for the Findlay & Walker model are discussed.

scholarly journals Asymmetric smooth pursuit eye movements and visual motion reaction time

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (14) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seiji Ono ◽  
Kenichiro Miura ◽  
Takashi Kawamura ◽  
Tomohiro Kizuka
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Smooth Pursuit ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Pursuit Eye Movements

The simple reaction time to changes in direction of visual motion

1999 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Mateeff ◽  
B. Genova ◽  
J. Hohnsbein
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Simple Reaction

scholarly journals The Neural Basis for Response Latency in a Sensory-Motor Behavior

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 3055-3073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joonyeol Lee ◽  
Timothy R Darlington ◽  
Stephen G Lisberger
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Neural Circuit ◽  
Threshold Model ◽  
Field Potential ◽  
Motor Reaction ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
Preparatory Activity

Abstract We seek a neural circuit explanation for sensory-motor reaction times. In the smooth eye movement region of the frontal eye fields (FEFSEM), the latencies of pairs of neurons show trial-by-trial correlations that cause trial-by-trial correlations in neural and behavioral latency. These correlations can account for two-third of the observed variation in behavioral latency. The amplitude of preparatory activity also could contribute, but the responses of many FEFSEM neurons fail to support predictions of the traditional “ramp-to-threshold” model. As a correlate of neural processing that determines reaction time, the local field potential in FEFSEM includes a brief wave in the 5–15-Hz frequency range that precedes pursuit initiation and whose phase is correlated with the latency of pursuit in individual trials. We suggest that the latency of the incoming visual motion signals combines with the state of preparatory activity to determine the latency of the transient response that controls eye movement. Impact statement The motor cortex for smooth pursuit eye movements contributes to sensory-motor reaction time through the amplitude of preparatory activity and the latency of transient, visually driven responses.

scholarly journals Revealing the Radial Effect on Orientation Discrimination by Manual Reaction Time

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lixin Liang ◽  
Yang Zhou ◽  
Mingsha Zhang ◽  
Yujun Pan
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Orientation Discrimination ◽  
Manual Reaction Time

A bounded leaky integrator model can explain variations in reaction time during task switching

2011 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. e146-e147
Author(s):  
Akinori Mitani ◽  
Masafumi Oizumi ◽  
Ryo Sasaki ◽  
Takanori Uka
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Leaky Integrator ◽  
Integrator Model

scholarly journals The neural basis for response latency in a sensory-motor behavior

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joonyeol Lee ◽  
Timothy R. Darlington ◽  
Stephen G. Lisberger
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Smooth Pursuit ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Threshold Model ◽  
Field Potential ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Sensory Motor ◽  
Preparatory Activity

AbstractWe seek a neural circuit explanation for sensory-motor reaction times. We have found evidence that two of three possible mechanisms could contribute to reaction times in smooth pursuit eye movements. In the smooth eye movement region of the frontal eye fields (FEFSEM), an area that causally affects the initiation of smooth pursuit eye movement, neural and behavioral latencies have significant trial-by-trial correlations that can account for 40% to 100% of the variation in behavioral latency. The amplitude of preparatory activity, which represents the motor system’s expectations for target motion, shows negative trial-by-trial correlations with behavioral latency and could contribute to the neural computation of reaction time. In contrast, the traditional “ramp-to-threshold” model is contradicted by the responses of many, but not all FEFSEM neurons. As evidence of neural processing that determines reaction time, the local field potential in FEFSEM includes a brief wave in the 5-15 Hz frequency range that precedes pursuit initiation and whose phase is correlated with the latency of pursuit in individual trials. We suggest that the latency of the incoming visual motion signals combines with the state of preparatory activity to determine the latency of the transient response that drives eye movement.

scholarly journals Children who stutter exchange linguistic accuracy for processing speed in sentence comprehension

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
TALITA FORTUNATO-TAVARES ◽  
PETER HOWELL ◽  
RICHARD G. SCHWARTZ ◽  
CLAUDIA R. FURQUIM DE ANDRADE
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Processing Speed ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Motor Reaction ◽  
Motor Reaction Time ◽  
Comprehension Task ◽  
Speed Accuracy ◽  
Manual Reaction Time

ABSTRACTComprehension of predicates and reflexives was examined in children who stutter (CWS) and children who do not stutter (CWNS) who were between 9 years, 7 months and 10 years, 2 months. Demands on working memory and manual reaction time were also assessed in two experiments that employed a four-choice picture-selection sentence comprehension task. CWS were less accurate than CWNS on the attachment of predicates. For reflexives, there was no between-group difference in accuracy, but there was a difference in speed. The two constructions induced processing at different points on a speed–accuracy continuum with CWS sacrificing accuracy to respond fast with predicates, while they maintained accuracy of reflexives by responding slower relative to CWNS. Predicates made more demands on language than nonspeech motor reaction time, whereas the reverse was the case with reflexives for CWS compared to CWNS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document