Frontal eye field

Squire, Ryan Fox; Steinmetz, Nicholas A.; Moore, Tirin

doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.5341

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[10][11][12] This suggested that feedback connections between the FEF and V4 result in signals from the FEF influencing subsequent visual processing. [42][43][44][45][46] In addition, Supèr et al 47 found that, 100 ms before the onset of visually and memory-guided saccades, activity in V1 was enhanced at the location of the saccade target. Work in human populations has provided further support for a link between oculomotor-driven shifts in spatial attention and subsequent improvements in visual processing.…”

Section: Attention and The Oculomotor Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effector‐based attention systems

Perry

Fallah

2017

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual processing is known to be enhanced at the end point of eye movements. Feedback within the oculomotor system has been shown to drive these alterations in visual processing. However, we do not simply view the world; we also reach out and interact using our hands. Consequently, it is not surprising that visual processing has also been shown to be altered in near-hand space. A growing body of work documents a myriad of alterations in near-hand visual processing, with little consensus on the neural underpinnings of the effect of the hand. Since movement of the eyes and hands is governed by parallel frontoparietal networks and since within the oculomotor system feedback from these motor control regions has been shown to drive enhanced visual processing at saccade end points, it is plausible that a similar feedback mechanism is at play in near-hand improvements in visual processing. Here, we compare and contrast oculomotor-driven and hand-driven changes in visual processing and provide support for the hypothesis that feedback within the reaching and grasping systems enhances visual processing near the hand in a novel way.

show abstract

Section: Attention and The Oculomotor Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effector‐based attention systems

Perry

Fallah

2017

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, attempts to understand its neural basis have focused principally on how motor alternatives are prioritized based on sensory evidence and internally specified goals. This has been extensively studied within the frontal eye field (FEF), a prefrontal region that has been implicated in visual target selection, spatial and feature-based attention, and saccade execution [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Using search tasks that require discriminating a target from distracters on the basis of some visual feature dimension (e.g., color), such studies have consistently demonstrated the primacy of visually responsive cells in first responding to the stimulus in space and next, in signaling, through a modulation in firing rate, its identity as either target or distracter [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

All-or-None Context Dependence Delineates Limits of FEF Visual Target Selection

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the incongruent condition, in particular, nearly all of the variance observed experimentally — in RT, saccadic choice, threshold level, and in the build-up rates and peak responses of the neurons — results from the computational amplification of the initial fluctuations in baseline. Arguably, the baselines reflect multiple cognitive elements, including expectation, anticipation, and the allocation of attention and other resources (Bruce and Goldberg, 1985; Coe et al, 2002; Maunsell, 2004; Rao et al, 2012; Zhang et al, 2014; Thura and Cisek, 2016), in agreement with the effects of sub-threshold microstimulation (Glimcher and Sparks, 1993; Dorris et al, 2007; Squire et al, 2012). In the model, they set the initial spatial priorities, and thereafter the circuit dynamically blends them with the incoming sensory signal to produce the next saccade.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets

Hauser

Zhu

Stanford

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In studies of voluntary movement, a most elemental quantity is the reaction time (RT) between the onset of a visual stimulus and a saccade toward it. However, this RT demonstrates extremely high variability, which in spite of extensive research remains unexplained. It is well established that, when a visual target appears, oculomotor activity gradually builds up until a critical level is reached, at which point a saccade is triggered. Here, we further characterize the dynamics of this rise-to-threshold process based on computational work and single-neuron recordings from the frontal eye field (FEF) of behaving monkeys. We find that the baseline activity, build-up rate, and threshold level show strong, nonlinear co-dependencies that explain the distinct RT distributions observed experimentally. The results indicate that intrinsic randomness contributes little to saccade variance, which results mainly from an intricate, fundamentally deterministic mechanism of motor conflict resolution that has subtle yet highly characteristic manifestations.

show abstract

Frontal eye field

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Effector‐based attention systems

Effector‐based attention systems

All-or-None Context Dependence Delineates Limits of FEF Visual Target Selection

Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About