Oculoparalytic Illusion: Visual-Field Dependent Spatial Mislocalizations by Humans Partially Paralyzed with Curare

Matin, Leonard; Picoult, Evan; Stevens, J. R.; Edwards, McIver W.; Young, D. K.; MacArthur, Rodger D.

doi:10.1126/science.7063881

Cited by 170 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This implies that under normal perceptual conditions the efference copy signal of eye position after the saccade plays only a minor role in transsaccadic localization; rather, transsaccadic displacement judgements and perceived visual stability are based on the evaluation of postsaccadic landmark objects. The importance of visual reference frames is also supported by earlier experiments, which indicated that in normal visual scenes, visual information dominates over eye position information in judgements of visual direction, when both signals are in conflict (Matin, Picoult, Stevens, Edwards, Young, & MacArthur, 1982;Stark & Bridgeman, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Localization of targets across saccades: Role of landmark objects

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saccadic eye movements are required to bring different parts of the visual world into the foveal region of the retina. With each saccade, the images of the objects drastically change their retinal positionsÐnevertheless, the visual world appears continuous and does not seem to jump. How does the visual system achieve this continuous and stable percept of the visual world, despite the gross changes of its retinal projection that occur with each saccade? The present paper argues that an important factor of this type of space constancy is formed by the reafferent information, i.e., the visual display that is found when the eyes land. Three experiments demonstrate that objects present across the saccade can serve as landmarks for postsaccadic relocalization. The basic experimental manipulation consisted of a systematic displacement of these landmark objects during the saccade. The effectiveness of the landmarks was determined by analysing to what degree they modify the perceived shift of a small saccade target that was blanked for 200 ms during and after the saccade. A first experiment studied the spatial range where objects become effective as landmarks. The data show that landmarks close to the saccade target and horizontally aligned with the target are specifically effective. The second experiment demonstrates that postsaccadic localization is normally based on relational information about relative stimulus positions transferred across the saccade. A third experiment studied the effect of a prominent background frame on transsaccadic localization; the results suggest that background structures contribute only little to transsaccadic localization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Localization of targets across saccades: Role of landmark objects

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sherrington (1918), solely on the grounds that human extrinsic ocular muscles contain muscle spindles and without answering Helmholtz's contrary arguments, suggested that we use proprioceptive information from sensors in the extrinsic ocular muscles {see Milleret et al, 1985, for a review of the literature on direct and secondary central projections of ocular muscle proprioceptors). Mach (1886), Kornmuller (1931), Brindley and Merton (1960), Stevens et al (1976), Matin et al (1982) and Guthrie et al (1983) published new experiments that confirm that outflow information is used, but did not exclude a minor contribution from proprioceptors. Sherrington's view in its pure form has never had any experimental support, but Siebeck (1954) published an observation which made it probable that in one extreme situation messages from sensors in the orbit can influence the direction of things seen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…If Siebeck's subjects succeeded in sending impulses out along their oculomotor nerves, this disproves (for an extreme condition) the pure form of Helmholtz's theory. Brindley et al (1976) and Matin et al (1982) extended Siebeck's experiment to unilateral paralysis. They showed that during an attempted eye movement, things seen by an eye whose extrinsic muscles are completely paralysed by retrobulbar injection of local anaesthetic appear stationary, although, if the paralysis is incomplete, they move as predicted by Helmholtz's theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ocular Muscle Proprioception and Visual Localization of Targets in Man

Gauthier¹,

Nommay²,

Vercher³

1990

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYPassive deviation of one eye through 18°, 30° and 42°, achieved by force applied to a sucked-on contact lens, caused the direction of visual targets seen by the other eye to be misjudged in the direction of the passive movement by an amount roughly one-sixth of the angle of passive deviation. The result was the same when the perceived direction was indicated by hand, as when the instant at which a moving target seemed straight ahead was signalled. This result is interpreted by considering that muscular efferents were identical in normal and eye-deviated subjects. The main difference between the two target localization conditions results from the proprioceptor output of the deviated eye. Our data demonstrate that the assessment of the direction of a target seen by an eye that is free to move depends in part on information received by the brain from proprioceptors in the orbit (in our case the contfalateral orbit). It would be surprising if the ipsilateral orbit did not contribute as much or more. We therefore consider that this constitutes clear evidence against the pure outflow theory of visual direction judgement (Helmholz, 1867), additional to that provided by the all-or-nothing situation of complete versus incomplete oculomotor paralysis.Two models have previously been proposed to describe the function of the visual localization mechanism. Both assume that the necessary information is derived from the coding of the position of the eye in the orbit, either through a copy of the muscular activation or through eye muscle proprioception. We propose an alternative model in which both afferent and efferent signals from all actively contracted or stretched muscles provide the necessary information to the CNS. The data gathered so far from normal subjects made strabismic with a suction lens, and from a fair proportion of strabismic patients, support our model describing the mechanism of localization of a single punctate target in darkness.

show abstract

“…A parallax method showed that an eyepress displaces the eye medially in the orbit as a result of combined pressure from the finger and the lateral rectus muscle. A structured visual field reduces the perceptual effects of changed oculomotor efference (Matin et al, 1982). A pointing measure, however, shows effects of changed efference both with and without a structured visual field (Stark & Bridgeman, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Influence of mechanical disturbance on oculomotor behavior

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ahatraet-Using a binocular search coil technique, we measured oculomotor behavior during gentle pressing with a finger on the outer canthus of one eye. With a steadily pressed viewing eye, and the fellow eye occluded, the occluded eye deviates while the pressed eye does not. If the eye is rapidly pressed and released, the compensation of rotational force in the pressed eye becomes incomplete, so that both eyes move. At high frequencies of press (> 1 Hz) the pressed eye is deviated and the contralateral eye no longer moves. In darkness the pressed eye always rotates but the contralateral eye never does, demonstrating that any inflow from proprio~ptors sensing rotation of the pressed eye does not affect oculomotor posture as measured in the fellow eye. With binocular viewing the results are more variable. On some trials neither eye moves, while on others both move. The results can be interpreted as a Hering's law controlled attempting to reconcile disparate inputs from the two eyes. The results confirm and extend, with objective measures, earlier conclusions from subjective experiments.

show abstract

Oculoparalytic Illusion: Visual-Field Dependent Spatial Mislocalizations by Humans Partially Paralyzed with Curare

Cited by 170 publications

References 13 publications

Localization of targets across saccades: Role of landmark objects

Localization of targets across saccades: Role of landmark objects

Ocular Muscle Proprioception and Visual Localization of Targets in Man

Influence of mechanical disturbance on oculomotor behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About