Rhythmic synchronization of neurons in the beta or gamma band occurs almost ubiquitously, and this synchronization has been linked to numerous nervous system functions. Many respective studies make the implicit assumption that neuronal synchronization affects neuronal interactions. Indeed, when neurons synchronize, their output spikes reach postsynaptic neurons together, trigger coincidence detection mechanisms, and therefore have an enhanced impact. There is ample experimental evidence demonstrating this consequence of neuronal synchronization, but beyond this, beta/gamma-band synchronization within a group of neurons might also modulate the impact of synaptic input to that synchronized group. This would constitute a separate mechanism through which synchronization affects neuronal interactions, but direct in vivo evidence for this putative mechanism is lacking. Here, we demonstrate that synchronized beta-band activity of a neuronal group modulates the efficacy of synaptic input to that group in-phase with the beta rhythm. This response modulation was not an addition of rhythmic activity onto the average response but a rhythmic modulation of multiplicative input gain. Our results demonstrate that beta-rhythmic activity of a neuronal target group multiplexes input gain along the rhythm cycle. The actual gain of an input then depends on the precision and the phase of its rhythmic synchronization to this target, providing one mechanistic explanation for why synchronization modulates interactions.

Our ability to interact with the environment hinges on creating a stable visual world despite the continuous changes in retinal input. To achieve visual stability, the brain must distinguish the retinal image shifts caused by eye movements and shifts due to movements of the visual scene. This process appears not to be flawless: during saccades, we often fail to detect whether visual objects remain stable or move, which is called saccadic suppression of displacement (SSD). How does the brain evaluate the memorized information of the presaccadic scene and the actual visual feedback of the postsaccadic visual scene in the computations for visual stability? Using a SSD task, we test how participants localize the presaccadic position of the fixation target, the saccade target or a peripheral non-foveated target that was displaced parallel or orthogonal during a horizontal saccade, and subsequently viewed for three different durations. Results showed different localization errors of the three targets, depending on the viewing time of the postsaccadic stimulus and its spatial separation from the presaccadic location. We modeled the data through a Bayesian causal inference mechanism, in which at the trial level an optimal mixing of two possible strategies, integration vs. separation of the presaccadic memory and the postsaccadic sensory signals, is applied. Fits of this model generally outperformed other plausible decision strategies for producing SSD. Our findings suggest that humans exploit a Bayesian inference process with two causal structures to mediate visual stability.

Movement inhibition is an aspect of executive control that can be studied using the countermanding paradigm, wherein subjects try to cancel an impending movement following presentation of a stop signal. This paradigm permits estimation of the stop-signal reaction time or the time needed to respond to the stop signal. Numerous countermanding studies have examined fast, ballistic movements, such as saccades, even though many movements in daily life are not ballistic and can be stopped at any point during their trajectory. A benefit of studying the control of nonballistic movements is that antagonist muscle recruitment, which serves to actively brake a movement, presumably arises in response to the stop signal. Here, nine human participants (2 female) performed a center-out whole-arm reaching task with a countermanding component, while we recorded the activity of upper-limb muscles contributing to movement generation and braking. The data show a clear response on antagonist muscles to a stop signal, even for movements that have barely begun. As predicted, the timing of such antagonist recruitment relative to the stop signal covaried with conventional estimates of the stop-signal reaction time, both within and across subjects. The timing of antagonist muscle recruitment also attested to a rapid reprioritization of movement inhibition, with antagonist latencies decreasing across sequences consisting of repeated stop trials; such reprioritization also scaled with error magnitude. We conclude that antagonist muscle recruitment arises as a manifestation of a stopping process, providing a novel, accessible, and within-trial measure of the stop-signal reaction time. The countermanding or stop-signal paradigm permits estimation of how quickly subjects cancel an impending movement. Traditionally, this paradigm has been studied using simple movements, such as saccadic eye movements or button presses. Here, by measuring upper limb muscle activity while human subjects countermand whole-arm reaching movements, we show that movement cancellation often involves prominent recruitment of antagonist muscles that serves to actively brake the movement, even on movements that have barely begun. The timing of antagonist muscle recruitment correlates with traditional estimates of movement cancellation. Because they can be detected on a single-trial basis, muscle-based measures may provide a new way of characterizing movement cancellation at an unprecedented within-trial resolution.

To localize objects relative to ourselves, we need to combine various sensory and motor signals. When these signals change abruptly, as information about eye orientation does during saccades, small differences in latency between the signals could introduce localization errors. We examine whether independent temporal information can influence such errors. We asked participants to follow a randomly jumping dot with their eyes and to point at flashes that occurred near the time they made saccades. Such flashes are mislocalized. We presented a tone at different times relative to the flash. We found that the flash was mislocalized as if it had occurred closer in time to the tone. This demonstrates that temporal information is taken into consideration when combining sensory information streams for localization.

Flashes presented around the time of a saccade are often mislocalized. Such mislocalization is influenced by various factors. Here, we evaluate the role of the saccade target as a landmark when localizing flashes. The experiment was performed in a normally illuminated room to provide ample other visual references. Subjects were instructed to follow a randomly jumping target with their eyes. We flashed a black dot on the screen around the time of saccade onset. The subjects were asked to localize the black dot by touching the appropriate location on the screen. In a first experiment, the saccade target was displaced during the saccade. In a second experiment, it disappeared at different moments. Both manipulations affected the mislocalization. We conclude that our subjects' judgments are partly based on the flashed dot's position relative to the saccade target.