Interactions between eye movement systems in cats and humans

Abstract

Eye movements can be broadly classified into target-selecting and gaze-stabilizing eye movements. How do the different systems interact under natural conditions? Here we investigate interactions between the optokinetic and the target-selecting system in cats and humans. We use combinations of natural and grating stimuli. The natural stimuli are movies and pictures taken from the cat's own point of view with a head-mounted camera while it moved about freely in an outdoor environment. We superimpose linear global motion on the stimuli and use measurements of optokinetic nystagmus as a probe to study the interaction between the different systems responsible for controlling eye movements. Cats display higher precision stabilizing eye movements in response to natural pictures as compared to drifting gratings. In contrast, humans perform similarly under these two conditions. This suggests an interaction of the optokinetic and the pursuit system. In cats, the natural movies elicit very weak optokinetic responses. In humans, by contrast, the natural movie stimuli elicit effectively stabilizing eye movements. In both species, we find a unimodal distribution of saccades for all stimulus velocities. This suggests an early interaction of target-selecting and gaze-stabilizing saccades. Thus, we argue for a more integrated view in humans of the different eye movement systems.

The Sparseness of Neuronal Responses in Ferret Primary Visual Cortex

“…The interval between image fragments, during which the display was held a uniform gray, was usually 150 -170 ms (occasionally 100 ms), long enough for any "OFF" response to one fragment to be distinct from the "ON" response to the next. This procedure allowed clear decisions as to which action potentials were generated by which images and, to an extent, stylizes natural viewing in which the fixations between saccades to new targets might last 250 ms or more (Stryker and Blakemore, 1972;Gallant, 2000, 2002;Moeller et al, 2004;Maldonado and Babul, 2007;Foulsham and Underwood, 2008). Furthermore, a 100 ms presentation is generally sufficient to allow detection or discrimination in simple (Tolhurst, 1975) or complex visual stimuli (Buracas et al, 1998;Müller et al, 2001;Thorpe et al, 2001).…”

Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience

“…Humans tend to select nearby locations more frequently than distant locations as targets for their saccades (e.g., Bahill, Adler, & Stark, 1975; Gajewski, Pearson, Mack, Bartlett, & Henderson, 2005; Pelz & Canosa, 2001; Tatler et al, 2006). Similarly, when viewing pictures, horizontal saccades dominate (e.g., Bair & O'Keefe, 1998; Lappe, Pekel, & Hoffmann, 1998; Lee, Badler, & Badler, 2002; Moeller, Kayser, Knecht, & König, 2004). Incorporating these tendencies into models of fixation selection dramatically improves the predictive power of the model (Tatler & Vincent, 2009); indeed, these motor biases alone predicted fixation selection better than a model based on homogenous salience computation or homogenous edge feature extraction.…”

The marmoset monkey as a model for visual neuroscience

“…The cat area centralis is much lower in its resolution than the primate fovea and is also elongated horizontally (Rapaport and Stone, 1984). The saccades of cats are less frequent, slower, and more variable than those of primates (Moeller et al, 2004). Mice, whose central portion of the retina shows minimal specialization for higher acuity vision, make even fewer saccade-like eye movements and rely primarily on head movements to orient their gaze (Sakatani and Isa, 2007).…”