4.7 Article

Neural activity in the frontal eye fields modulated by the number of alternatives in target choice

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 28, Issue 9, Pages 2242-2251

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3596-07.2008

Keywords

saccade; decision; response selection; macaque; frontal eye fields; single-unit activity

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-08060] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Selection of identical responses may not use the same neural mechanisms when the number of alternatives ( NA) for the selection changes, as suggested by Hick's law. For elucidating the choice mechanisms, frontal eye field ( FEF) neurons were monitored during a color-to-location choice saccade task as the number of potential targets was varied. Visual responses to alternative targets decreased as NA increased, whereas perisaccade activities increased with NA. These modulations of FEF activities seem closely related to the choice process because the activity enhancements coincided with the timing of target selection, and the neural modulation was greater as NA increased, features expected of neural correlates for a choice process from the perspective of Hick's law. Our current observations suggest two novel notions of FEF neuronal behavior that have not been reported previously: ( 1) cells called phasic visual that do not discharge in the perisaccade interval in a delayed-saccade paradigm show such activity in a choice response task at the time of the saccade; and ( 2) the activity in FEF visuomotor cells display an inverse relationship between perisaccadic activity and the time of saccade triggering with higher levels of activity leading to longer saccade reaction times. These findings support the area's involvement in sensory-motor translation for target selection through coactivation and competitive interaction of neural populations that code for alternative action sets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available