Effect of a Central Fixation Light on Auditory Spatial Responses in Area LIP

A recent report demonstrated that, while fixating a central light, lateral intraparietal area (LIP) neurons are not modulated by the location of auditory stimuli until monkeys learn to saccade to the location of an auditory stimulus. This finding suggests that auditory spatial responses in area LIP are dependent on auditory-saccadic training. We found that, in monkeys that had not been trained to make behavioral responses to auditory stimuli, LIP neurons are modulated by auditory-stimulus location when a central light is not present in the environment. These results indicate that LIP auditory responses are not wholly dependent on behavioral training with auditory stimuli.

Implications of Ocular Kinematics for the Internal Updating of Visual Space

Recent studies have suggested that during saccades cortical and subcortical representations of visual targets are represented and remapped in retinal coordinates. If this is correct, then the remapping processes must incorporate the noncommutativity of rotations. For example, our three-dimensional (3-D) simulations of the commutative vector-subtraction model of retinocentric remapping predicted centripetal errors in saccade trajectories between “remembered” eccentric targets, whereas our noncommutative model predicted accurate saccades. We tested between these two models in five head-fixed human subjects. Typically, a central fixation light appeared and two peripheral targets were flashed. With all targets extinguished, subjects were required to saccade to the remembered location of one of the peripheral targets and saccade between their remembered locations. Subjects showed minor misestimations of the spatial locations of targets, but failed to show the cumulative pattern of errors predicted by the commutative model. This experiment indicates that if targets are remapped in a retinal frame, then the remapping process also takes the noncommutativity of 3-D eye rotations into account. Unlike other noncommutative aspects of eye rotations that may have mechanical explanations, the noncommutative aspects of this process must be entirely internal.

Dynamic Representation of Eye Position in the Parieto-Occipital Sulcus

Dynamic representation of eye position in the parieto-occipital sulcus. Area V6A, on the anterior bank of the parieto-occipital sulcus of the monkey brain, contains neurons sensitive both to visual stimulation and to the position and movement of the eyes. We examined the effects of eye position and eye movement on the activity of V6A neurons in monkeys trained to saccade to and fixate on target locations. Forty-eight percent of the neurons responded during these tasks. The responses were not caused by the visual stimulation of the fixation light because extinguishing the fixation light had no effect. Instead the neurons responded in relation to the position of the eye during fixation. Some neurons preferred a restricted range of eye positions, whereas others had more complex and distributed eye-position fields. None of these eye-related neurons responded before or during saccades. They all responded postsaccadically during fixation on the target location. However, the neurons did not simply encode the static position of the eyes. Instead most (88%) responded best after the eye saccaded into the eye-position field and responded significantly less well when the eye made a saccade that was entirely contained within the eye-position field. Furthermore, for many eye-position cells (45%), the response was greatest immediately after the eye reached the preferred position and was significantly reduced after 500 ms of fixation. Thus these neurons preferentially encoded the initial arrival of the eye into the eye-position field rather than the continued presence or the movement of the eye within the eye-position field. Area V6A therefore contains a representation of the position of the eye in the orbit, but this representation appears to be dynamic, emphasizing the arrival of the eye at a new position.

Fixation artifacts in transmission electron microscopy

Cell and tissue preparations for transmission EM contain artifacts introduced at each step of the preparative method. Fixation, as a first and crucial step, is subject to both gross and subtle artifact. For familiar tissues, gross artifacts are easily recognized. Artifacts in unfamiliar cells and subtle distortions or alterations of structure or localizations of molecules of interest are more difficult to assess.Three general approaches are useful for identification of fixation artifacts. Especially in the case of single cells, it is possible to make direct comparison of living and fixed specimens. Advanced light microscopic methods allow very high-resolution imaging of cells and comparison of structure before and after fixation. Light microscopic observation during fixation has documented examples both of creation of structure and disappearance of structure. A more widely applicable approach is the comparison of structure in the same tissue after fixation by different procedures.