Suppression of Visually and Memory-Guided Saccades Induced by Electrical Stimulation of the Monkey Frontal Eye Field. II. Suppression of Bilateral Saccades

Izawa, Yoshiko; Suzuki, Hisao; Shinoda, Yoshikazu

doi:10.1152/jn.00085.2004

Cited by 43 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bilateral RT delays with microstimulation after the Go signal have been reported for structures involved in saccade control, such as the dlPFC (Wegener et al, 2008), FEF (Izawa et al, 2004a), supplementary eye field (SEF) and pre-SMA (Isoda, 2005; Yang et al, 2008), caudate (Watanabe and Munoz, 2010, 2011), and rostral SC (Munoz and Wurtz, 1993b). In cortex, delays were typically stronger for ipsiversive saccades (Izawa et al, 2004b; Isoda, 2005; Wegener et al, 2008), whereas the opposite pattern was observed in SC and caudate (Munoz and Wurtz, 1993b; Watanabe and Munoz, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Electrical Microstimulation of the Pulvinar Biases Saccade Choices and Reaction Times in a Time-Dependent Manner

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pulvinar complex is interconnected extensively with brain regions involved in spatial processing and eye movement control. Recent inactivation studies have shown that the dorsal pulvinar (dPul) plays a role in saccade target selection; however, it remains unknown whether it exerts effects on visual processing or at planning/execution stages. We used electrical microstimulation of the dPul while monkeys performed saccade tasks toward instructed and freely chosen targets. Timing of stimulation was varied, starting before, at, or after onset of target(s). Stimulation affected saccade properties and target selection in a time-dependent manner. Stimulation starting before but overlapping with target onset shortened saccadic reaction times (RTs) for ipsiversive (to the stimulation site) target locations, whereas stimulation starting at and after target onset caused systematic delays for both ipsiversive and contraversive locations. Similarly, stimulation starting before the onset of bilateral targets increased ipsiversive target choices, whereas stimulation after target onset increased contraversive choices. Properties of dPul neurons and stimulation effects were consistent with an overall contraversive drive, with varying outcomes contingent upon behavioral demands. RT and choice effects were largely congruent in the visually-guided task, but stimulation during memory-guided saccades, while influencing RTs and errors, did not affect choice behavior. Together, these results show that the dPul plays a primary role in action planning as opposed to visual processing, that it exerts its strongest influence on spatial choices when decision and action are temporally close, and that this choice effect can be dissociated from motor effects on saccade initiation and execution.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Despite a recent surge of interest, the core function of the pulvinar, the largest thalamic complex in primates, remains elusive. This understanding is crucial given the central role of the pulvinar in current theories of integrative brain functions supporting cognition and goal-directed behaviors, but electrophysiological and causal interference studies of dorsal pulvinar (dPul) are rare. Building on our previous studies that pharmacologically suppressed dPul activity for several hours, here we used transient electrical microstimulation at different periods while monkeys performed instructed and choice eye movement tasks, to determine time-specific contributions of pulvinar to saccade generation and decision making. We show that stimulation effects depend on timing and behavioral state and that effects on choices can be dissociated from motor effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Electrical Microstimulation of the Pulvinar Biases Saccade Choices and Reaction Times in a Time-Dependent Manner

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…demonstrated the axonal trajectory of single OPNs terminating in the EBN and IBN regions. OPNs discharge tonically during fixation and the tonic excitatory signals are considered to come from fixation neurons in the frontal eye field 39 and indirectly via fixation neurons in the most rostral SC 10–12 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural substrate for suppression of omnipause neurons at the onset of saccades

Shinoda

Sugiuchi

Takahashi

et al. 2011

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The saccade trigger signal was proposed by D.A. Robinson, but neural substrates for triggering saccades by inhibiting omnipause neuron (OPN) activity still remain controversial. We investigated tectal inputs to OPNs by recording intracellular potentials from OPNs and inhibitory burst neurons (IBNs) and searched for interneurons to inhibit OPNs in the brainstem of anesthetized cats. IBNs received monosynaptic excitation from the contralateral caudal superior colliculus (SC) and disynaptic inhibition via contralateral IBNs from the ipsilateral caudal SC, whereas IBNs received disynaptic inhibition from the rostral SC. The latter disynaptic inhibition was mediated by OPNs, since OPNs received monosynaptic excitation from the rostral SC and projected to IBNs. In contrast, OPNs received disynaptic inhibition from the caudal SC. This disynaptic inhibition from the caudal SC was mediated to OPNs by IBNs. These findings suggested possible roles of IBNs for triggering and maintaining saccades by actively inhibiting the tonic activity of OPNs.

show abstract

“…More than one hundred years later, other microstimulation studies evoking eye movements (Robinson and Fuchs, 1969; MacAvoy et al, 1991; Gottlieb et al, 1993; Izawa et al, 2004a,b, 2009), electrophysiological recordings during visual stimulation and/or eye movements (Bizzi, 1968; Wurtz and Mohler, 1976; Bruce and Goldberg, 1985; Segraves and Goldberg, 1987) and studies comparing cells discharge patterns during behavior or its alteration during the stimulation of these same neuronal populations (Bruce et al, 1985; Gottlieb et al, 1994) confirmed the existence of an FEF located in the posterior part of the pre-arcuate sulcus. They distinguished visual (modulated by functional significance), motor and visuo-motor neural populations for saccade, pursuit and fixation/saccade suppression, somehow spatially segregated and with different stimulation thresholds, which depended on the activation state of the monkey at the time of the stimulation.…”

Section: Localization Of Fefmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major emphasis has been put on the role of the FEF in the preparation and execution of saccades (Bizzi, 1968; Bruce and Goldberg, 1985). However, FEF also participates in the control of all the other types of eye movements, such as smooth pursuit or optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) (Bizzi, 1968; MacAvoy et al, 1991) and fixation (Izawa et al, 2004a,b, 2009). The intracortical stimulation of several subareas within the FEF is also able to trigger vergence movements (changes of the depth of the gaze) (Crosby et al, 1952, cited by Robinson and Fuchs, 1969).…”

Section: Introduction: Fef a Crossroads For Eye Movements And Visuo-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontal eye field, where art thou? Anatomy, function, and non-invasive manipulation of frontal regions involved in eye movements and associated cognitive operations

eVernet

Quentin

Chanes

et al. 2014

Front. Integr. Neurosci.

159

192

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The planning, control and execution of eye movements in 3D space relies on a distributed system of cortical and subcortical brain regions. Within this network, the Eye Fields have been described in animals as cortical regions in which electrical stimulation is able to trigger eye movements and influence their latency or accuracy. This review focuses on the Frontal Eye Field (FEF) a “hub” region located in Humans in the vicinity of the pre-central sulcus and the dorsal-most portion of the superior frontal sulcus. The straightforward localization of the FEF through electrical stimulation in animals is difficult to translate to the healthy human brain, particularly with non-invasive neuroimaging techniques. Hence, in the first part of this review, we describe attempts made to characterize the anatomical localization of this area in the human brain. The outcome of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Magneto-encephalography (MEG) and particularly, non-invasive mapping methods such a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) are described and the variability of FEF localization across individuals and mapping techniques are discussed. In the second part of this review, we will address the role of the FEF. We explore its involvement both in the physiology of fixation, saccade, pursuit, and vergence movements and in associated cognitive processes such as attentional orienting, visual awareness and perceptual modulation. Finally in the third part, we review recent evidence suggesting the high level of malleability and plasticity of these regions and associated networks to non-invasive stimulation. The exploratory, diagnostic, and therapeutic interest of such interventions for the modulation and improvement of perception in 3D space are discussed.

show abstract

Suppression of Visually and Memory-Guided Saccades Induced by Electrical Stimulation of the Monkey Frontal Eye Field. II. Suppression of Bilateral Saccades

Cited by 43 publications

References 52 publications

Electrical Microstimulation of the Pulvinar Biases Saccade Choices and Reaction Times in a Time-Dependent Manner

Electrical Microstimulation of the Pulvinar Biases Saccade Choices and Reaction Times in a Time-Dependent Manner

Neural substrate for suppression of omnipause neurons at the onset of saccades

Frontal eye field, where art thou? Anatomy, function, and non-invasive manipulation of frontal regions involved in eye movements and associated cognitive operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About