Central Organization and Modeling of Eye‐Head Coordination during Orienting Gaze Shifts<sup>a</sup>

Galiana, Henrietta L.; Guitton, Daniel

doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb25228.x

Cited by 109 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include the frontal eye fields (Chen 2006;Elsley et al 2007;Knight and Fuchs 2007;Monteon et al 2005;Tu and Keating 2000;van der Steen et al 1986), the supplementary eye fields (Chen and Walton 2005;MartinezTrujillo et al 2003MartinezTrujillo et al , 2004, and the superior colliculus (Freedman and Sparks 1997a;Freedman et al 1996;Klier et al 2001;Martinez-Trujillo et al 2003;Walton et al 2007Walton et al , 2008. Previous studies have provided evidence in support of a single gaze controller that programs both the eye and head components (Galiana and Guitton 1992;Guitton 1992;Guitton et al 2003;Lefèvre and Galiana 1992;Sparks et al 2001). Thus our results are consistent with attentional modulation of neural activity within this SEF-FEF-SC network representing the common gaze pathway.…”

Section: Common Effects Of Attention On the Eye And The Headmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Influence of Attention on Gaze and Head Movements

Khan

Blohm²,

McPeek³

et al. 2009

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Khan AZ, Blohm G, McPeek RM, Lefèvre P. Differential influence of attention on gaze and head movements. J Neurophysiol 101: 198 -206, 2009. First published November 5, 2008 doi:10.1152/jn.90815.2008. A salient peripheral cue can capture attention, influencing subsequent responses to a target. Attentional cueing effects have been studied for head-restrained saccades; however, under natural conditions, the head contributes to gaze shifts. We asked whether attention influences head movements in combined eye-head gaze shifts and, if so, whether this influence is different for the eye and head components. Subjects made combined eye-head gaze shifts to horizontal visual targets. Prior to target onset, a behaviorally irrelevant cue was flashed at the same (congruent) or opposite (incongruent) location at various stimulusonset asynchrony (SOA) times. We measured eye and head movements and neck muscle electromyographic signals. Reaction times for the eye and head were highly correlated; both showed significantly shorter latencies (attentional facilitation) for congruent compared with incongruent cues at the two shortest SOAs and the opposite pattern (inhibition of return) at the longer SOAs, consistent with attentional modulation of a common eye-head gaze drive. Interestingly, we also found that the head latency relative to saccade onset was significantly shorter for congruent than that for incongruent cues. This suggests an effect of attention on the head separate from that on the eyes. I N T R O D U C T I O NUnder natural, head-unrestrained viewing conditions, saccades are typically composed of a combination of eye and head movements resulting in an overall gaze shift. The role of attention in saccadic eye movements has been studied extensively in head-restrained conditions. It has been established that saccade execution requires a shift of attention to the saccade goal (e.g., Deubel and Schneider 1996;Hoffman and Subramaniam 1995;Kowler et al. 1995;McPeek et al. 1999), indicating a close linkage between eye movements and attention. Such a linkage is also supported by a number of studies showing shared neural substrates for saccadic eye movement planning and attentional processing (e.g., Beauchamp et al.

show abstract

Section: Common Effects Of Attention On the Eye And The Headmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Influence of Attention on Gaze and Head Movements

Khan

Blohm²,

McPeek³

et al. 2009

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has been a controversial issue with respect to eye-head coordination during gaze shifts, and two general classes of models had been proposed to account for the available data: gaze feedback models (Tomlinson 1990;Galiana and Guitton, 1992;Goossens and Van Opstal, 1997) and separate feedback models (Phillips et al, 1995;Freedman, 2001;Sparks et al, 2002). In the first class of models, gaze accuracy is maintained by comparing the desired change in gaze position with the actual gaze displacement, which is calculated from feedback of the ongoing eye and head movements.…”

Section: Feedback and The Control Of Gaze Shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Premotor Correlates of Integrated Feedback Control for Eye–Head Gaze Shifts

Sylvestre

Cullen

2006

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple activities like picking up the morning newspaper or catching a ball require finely coordinated movements of multiple body segments. How our brain readily achieves such kinematically complex yet remarkably precise multijoint movements remains a fundamental and unresolved question in neuroscience. Many prevailing theoretical frameworks ensure multijoint coordination by means of integrative feedback control. However, to date, it has proven both technically and conceptually difficult to determine whether the activity of motor circuits is consistent with integrated feedback coding. Here, we tested this proposal using coordinated eye-head gaze shifts as an example behavior. Individual neurons in the premotor network that command saccadic eye movements were recorded in monkeys trained to make voluntary eye-head gaze shifts. Head-movement feedback was experimentally controlled by unexpectedly and transiently altering the head trajectory midflight during a subset of movements. We found that the duration and dynamics of neuronal responses were appropriately updated following head perturbations to preserve global movement accuracy. Perturbation-induced increases in gaze shift durations were accompanied by equivalent changes in response durations so that neuronal activity remained tightly synchronized to gaze shift offset. In addition, the saccadic command signal was updated on-line in response to head perturbations applied during gaze shifts. Nearly instantaneous updating of responses, coupled with longer latency changes in overall discharge durations, indicated the convergence of at least two levels of feedback. We propose that this strategy is likely to have analogs in other motor systems and provides the flexibility required for fine-tuning goal-directed movements.

show abstract

“…For that to happen, the world target coordinates need to be transformed into oculocentric and head- centered coordinates, respectively. Alternatively, both could be driven by the same motor error signal, either by an oculomotor gaze error signal (as in the so-called common-gaze control model for eye and head) (Vidal et al, 1982;Guitton, 1992;Galiana and Guitton, 1992) or by a (acoustically defined) head motor error signal. The difference between these two reference frames is determined by the position of the eye in the head, which varies considerably and unpredictably from trial to trial and can be as large as 30° (Fig.…”

Section: Regression Analysis: Motor Error Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Sound Localization during Rapid Eye-Head Gaze Shifts

Vliegen¹,

Grootel²,

Opstal³

2004

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human sound localization relies on implicit head-centered acoustic cues. However, to create a stable and accurate representation of sounds despite intervening head movements, the acoustic input should be continuously combined with feedback signals about changes in head orientation. Alternatively, the auditory target coordinates could be updated in advance by using either the preprogrammed gaze-motor command or the sensory target coordinates to which the intervening gaze shift is made ("predictive remapping"). So far, previous experiments cannot dissociate these alternatives. Here, we study whether the auditory system compensates for ongoing saccadic eye and head movements in two dimensions that occur during target presentation. In this case, the system has to deal with dynamic changes of the acoustic cues as well as with rapid changes in relative eye and head orientation that cannot be preprogrammed by the audiomotor system. We performed visual-auditory double-step experiments in two dimensions in which a brief sound burst was presented while subjects made a saccadic eye-head gaze shift toward a previously flashed visual target. Our results show that localization responses under these dynamic conditions remain accurate. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the intervening eye and head movements are fully accounted for. Moreover, elevation response components were more accurate for longer-duration sounds (50 msec) than for extremely brief sounds (3 msec), for all localization conditions. Taken together, these results cannot be explained by a predictive remapping scheme. Rather, we conclude that the human auditory system adequately processes dynamically varying acoustic cues that result from self-initiated rapid head movements to construct a stable representation of the target in world coordinates. This signal is subsequently used to program accurate eye and head localization responses.

show abstract

Central Organization and Modeling of Eye‐Head Coordination during Orienting Gaze Shifts^a

Cited by 109 publications

References 44 publications

Differential Influence of Attention on Gaze and Head Movements

Differential Influence of Attention on Gaze and Head Movements

Premotor Correlates of Integrated Feedback Control for Eye–Head Gaze Shifts

Dynamic Sound Localization during Rapid Eye-Head Gaze Shifts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Central Organization and Modeling of Eye‐Head Coordination during Orienting Gaze Shiftsa

Cited by 109 publications

References 44 publications

Differential Influence of Attention on Gaze and Head Movements

Differential Influence of Attention on Gaze and Head Movements

Premotor Correlates of Integrated Feedback Control for Eye–Head Gaze Shifts

Dynamic Sound Localization during Rapid Eye-Head Gaze Shifts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Central Organization and Modeling of Eye‐Head Coordination during Orienting Gaze Shifts^a