A Within Trial Measure of the Stop Signal Reaction Time in a Head-Unrestrained Oculomotor Countermanding Task

Goonetilleke, Samanthi C.; Doherty, Timothy J.

doi:10.1152/jn.00495.2010

Cited by 27 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As previously reported (Corneil and Elsley 2005;Goonetilleke et al 2010), subjects generated three movement sequences when attempting to cancel large impending gaze shifts: they either fully cancelled motion of both the eyes and head (12.5 Ϯ 7.8% of all stop signal trials; Fig. 1C, left), generated a coordinated eye-head gaze shift to the target (50.5 Ϯ 6.0% of all stop signal trials; Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

“…Subjects performed an oculomotor countermanding task (Fig. 1A) with their head unrestrained, as described in greater detail elsewhere (Corneil and Elsley 2005;Goonetilleke et al 2010). Briefly, the primary task (no-stop trials) required subjects to generate gaze shifts from a central fixation point (presented for between 1 and 1.5 s) to the peripheral targets located 60°to the left and right.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As previously described (Goonetilleke et al 2010), we recorded horizontal eye movements via bitemporal electrooculography, head movements via an infrared tracking system, and the electromyographic (EMG) recruitment of splenius capitis (SPL; Fig. 1B), a neck muscle known to contribute to horizontal head turns in the ipsilateral direction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such head-only movements represent an intermediary type of error reflecting the nested nature of the eye within a mobile head; although gaze remains stable (hence subjects successfully cancelled the gaze shift), the head begins to orient to the target. Head-only movements are uniquely associated with a selective burst of antagonist neck muscle activity that actively brakes the head (Goonetilleke et al 2010). Across subjects, the timing of this antagonist burst relative to the stop signal (the antagonist muscle latency) correlated positively with estimates of the SSRT, even though antagonist muscle latencies were ϳ50 ms longer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validation of a within-trial measure of the oculomotor stop process

Goonetilleke

Wong

2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The countermanding (or stop signal) task requires subjects try to withhold a planned movement upon the infrequent presentation of a stop signal. We have previously proposed a within-trial measure of movement cancellation based on neck muscle recruitment during the cancellation of eye-head gaze shifts. Here, we examined such activity after either a bright or dim stop signal, a manipulation known to prolong the stop signal reaction time (SSRT). Regardless of stop signal intensity, subjects generated an appreciable number of head-only errors during successfully cancelled gaze shifts (compensatory eye-in-head motion ensured gaze stability), wherein subtle head motion toward a peripheral target was ultimately stopped by a braking pulse of antagonist neck muscle activity. Both the SSRT and timing of antagonist muscle recruitment relative to the stop signal increased for dim stop signals and decreased for longer stop signal delays. Moreover, we observed substantial variation in the distribution of antagonist muscle recruitment latencies across our sample. The magnitude and variance of the SSRTs and antagonist muscle recruitment latencies correlated positively across subjects, as did the within-subject changes across bright and dim stop signals. Finally, we fitted our behavioral data with a race model architecture that incorporated a lower threshold for initiating head movements. This model allowed us to estimate the efferent delay between the completion of a central stop process and the recruitment of antagonist neck muscles; the estimated efferent delay remained consistent within subjects across stop signal intensity. Overall, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that neck muscle recruitment during a specific subset of cancelled trials provides a peripheral expression of oculomotor cancellation on a single trial. In the discussion, we briefly speculate on the potential value of this measure for research in basic or clinical domains and consider current issues that limit more widespread use.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validation of a within-trial measure of the oculomotor stop process

Goonetilleke

Wong

2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although such dissociations may be construed as evidence against the unitary stop model, it can be accounted for by assuming the recruitment of slower peripheral stopping mechanism for the hand. Earlier work has shown that such a peripheral stopping system exists that is capable of aborting the overt response even though EMG responses in the muscles have started to build up (De Jong et al 1990;Goonetilleke et al 2010Goonetilleke et al , 2012.…”

Section: Mechanism Of Dissociated Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A common control signal and a ballistic stage can explain the control of coordinated eye-hand movements

Gopal

Murthy

2016

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gopal A, Murthy A. A common control signal and a ballistic stage can explain the control of coordinated eye-hand movements. J Neurophysiol 115: 2470 -2484, 2016. First published February 17, 2016 doi:10.1152/jn.00910.2015.-Voluntary control has been extensively studied in the context of eye and hand movements made in isolation, yet little is known about the nature of control during eye-hand coordination. We probed this with a redirect task. Here subjects had to make reaching/pointing movements accompanied by coordinated eye movements but had to change their plans when the target occasionally changed its position during some trials. Using a race model framework, we found that separate effector-specific mechanisms may be recruited to control eye and hand movements when executed in isolation but when the same effectors are coordinated a unitary mechanism to control coordinated eye-hand movements is employed. Specifically, we found that performance curves were distinct for the eye and hand when these movements were executed in isolation but were comparable when they were executed together. Second, the time to switch motor plans, called the target step reaction time, was different in the eye-alone and hand-alone conditions but was similar in the coordinated condition under assumption of a ballistic stage of ϳ40 ms, on average. Interestingly, the existence of this ballistic stage could predict the extent of eye-hand dissociations seen in individual subjects. Finally, when subjects were explicitly instructed to control specifically a single effector (eye or hand), redirecting one effector had a strong effect on the performance of the other effector. Taken together, these results suggest that a common control signal and a ballistic stage are recruited when coordinated eye-hand movement plans require alteration. eye-hand coordination; race model; inhibitory control; ballistic stage; reaction times THE ABILITY TO INHIBIT or change a planned movement is a critical feature that characterizes all voluntary movements. Such control is typically studied by assessing a subject's ability to stop or change his/her planned movement to an original target after presentation of a STOP/CHANGE signal delivered at successively increasing delays, producing a performance function or an inhibition/compensation function, respectively. Performance is typically modeled as an independent stochastic race between processes that initiate and inhibit the old motor plan (Hanes and Carpenter

show abstract

Current advances and pressing problems in studies of stopping

Schall

Godlove

2012

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stop-signal task probes agents’ ability to inhibit responding. A well-known race model affords estimation of the duration of the inhibition process. This powerful approach has yielded numerous insights into the neural circuitry underlying response control, the specificity of inhibition across effectors and response strategies, and executive processes such as performance monitoring. Translational research between human and non-human primates has been particularly useful in this venture. Continued progress with the stop-signal paradigm is contingent upon appreciating the dynamics of entire cortical and subcortical neural circuits and obtaining neurophysiological data from each node in the circuit. Progress can also be anticipated on extensions of the race model to account for selective stopping; we expect this will entail embedding behavioral inhibition in the broader context of executive control.

show abstract

A Within Trial Measure of the Stop Signal Reaction Time in a Head-Unrestrained Oculomotor Countermanding Task

Cited by 27 publications

References 57 publications

Validation of a within-trial measure of the oculomotor stop process

Validation of a within-trial measure of the oculomotor stop process

A common control signal and a ballistic stage can explain the control of coordinated eye-hand movements

Current advances and pressing problems in studies of stopping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About