4.4 Article

Primate antisaccade. II. Supplementary eye field neuronal activity predicts correct performance

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages 1672-1689

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00138.2003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-05879, EY-02305] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neuronal activities were recorded in the supplementary eye field (SEF) of 3 macaque monkeys trained to perform antisaccades pseudorandomly interleaved with prosaccades, as instructed by the shape of a central fixation point. The prosaccade goal was indicated by a peripheral stimulus flashed anywhere on the screen, whereas the antisaccade goal was an unmarked site diametrically opposite the flashed stimulus. The visual cue was given immediately after the instruction cue disappeared in the immediate-saccade task, or during the instruction period in the delayed-saccade task. The instruction cue offset was the saccade gosignal. Here we focus on 92 task-related neurons: visual, eye-movement, and instruction/fixation neurons. We found that 73% of SEF eye-movement-related neurons fired significantly more before antisaccades than prosaccades. This finding was analyzed at 3 levels: population, single neuron, and individual trial. On individual antisaccade trials, 40 ms before saccade, the firing rate of eye-movement related neurons was highly predictive of successful performance. A similar analysis of visual responses ( 40 ms astride the peak) gave less-coherent results. Fixation neurons, activated during the initial instruction period (i.e., after the instruction cue but before the stimulus) always fired more on antisaccade than on prosaccade trials. This trend, however, was statistically significant for only half of these neurons. We conclude that the SEF is critically involved in the production of antisaccades.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available