Mechanisms of saccade suppression revealed in the anti-saccade task

Abstract

The anti-saccade task has emerged as an important tool for investigating the complex nature of voluntary behaviour. In this task, participants are instructed to suppress the natural response to look at a peripheral visual stimulus and look in the opposite direction instead. Analysis of saccadic reaction times (SRT: the time from stimulus appearance to the first saccade) and the frequency of direction errors (i.e. looking toward the stimulus) provide insight into saccade suppression mechanisms in the brain. Some direction errors are reflexive responses with very short SRTs (express latency saccades), while other direction errors are driven by automated responses and have longer SRTs. These different types of errors reveal that the anti-saccade task requires different forms of suppression, and neurophysiological experiments in macaques have revealed several potential mechanisms. At the start of an anti-saccade trial, pre-emptive top-down inhibition of saccade generating neurons in the frontal eye fields and superior colliculus must be present before the stimulus appears to prevent express latency direction errors. After the stimulus appears, voluntary anti-saccade commands must compete with, and override, automated visually initiated saccade commands to prevent longer latency direction errors. The frequencies of these types of direction errors, as well as SRTs, change throughout the lifespan and reveal time courses for development, maturation, and ageing. Additionally, patients diagnosed with a variety of neurological and/or psychiatric disorders affecting the frontal lobes and/or basal ganglia produce markedly different SRT distributions and types of direction errors, which highlight specific deficits in saccade suppression and inhibitory control. The anti-saccade task therefore provides valuable insight into the neural mechanisms of saccade suppression and is a valuable tool in a clinical setting.This article is part of the themed issue 'Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness'.

Not moving: the fundamental but neglected motor function

“…Here again, the A response must if possible be internally cancelled. Analysis of reaction time distributions in all these tasks suggests that the same basic mechanism underlies them all, as well as externally driven countermanding; this is discussed in this issue by Noorani [34] and by Pouget and his colleagues [47] and more specific cases also by Coe & Munoz [52] and Cutsuridis [53], and for manual movements by Song [54].…”

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as a treatment for PTSD: current neurobiological theories and a new hypothesis

“…In eye‐tracking experiments, saccades provide quantitative and reliable metrics (amplitude, velocity, SRT, and end‐point accuracy) that are subject to detailed analysis . The underlying neural circuitry of saccades includes the frontoparietal network (FPN), basal ganglia, thalamus, superior colliculus, cerebellum, and brainstem . These brain regions overlap with areas involved in attention, goal‐directed thinking, decision‐making, timing, and motor activity.…”

Urgency reveals an attentional vortex during antisaccade performance

“…Neuroscience aims to explain macroscopic behavior based on the microscopic operation of distinct neural circuits, and this requires carefully designed tasks that expose the relationship between the two. In the case of the antisaccade task (Coe and Munoz, 2017; Munoz and Everling, 2004), in which participants are instructed to withhold responding to a salient visual stimulus in favor of programming a saccade to a diametrically opposed location, performance relies heavily on frontal cortical mechanisms associated with cognitive control (Guitton et al, 1985; Everling and Fischer, 1998; Munoz and Everling, 2004; Condy et al, 2007; Luna et al, 2008; Hakvoort et al, 2012). The paradigm is considered to be a sensitive assay of impulsivity and executive function in general, and indeed, the mean reaction time ( RT ) and overall error rate in the antisaccade task are frequently used as biomarkers for cognitive development (Klein and Foerster, 2001; Luna et al, 2008; Coe and Munoz, 2017) and, in clinical settings, for mental dysfunction (Everling and Fischer, 1998; Munoz et al, 2003; Hutton and Ettinger, 2006; Antoniades et al, 2015; Wiecki et al, 2016).…”