4.4 Article

Differential Effects of Reflex Blinks on Saccade Perturbations in Humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 1685-1695

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00788.2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [864.06.005, 805.05.003]
  2. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
  3. Radboud University Nijmegen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goossens HHLM, Van Opstal AJ. Differential effects of reflex blinks on saccade perturbations in humans. J Neurophysiol 103: 1685-1695, 2010. First published February 3, 2010; doi: 10.1152/jn.00788.2009. Studies in both humans and monkeys have indicated that blinks affect the central programming of saccades. In this study, we compared the influence of two types of reflex blinks on the trajectories and kinematics of memory-guided saccades in human subjects. We found that electrical stimulation of the supraorbital nerve shortly before or during a saccade briefly halts or decelerates the eye in midflight. After this short interruption, the eye always resumed its course and reached the target location in the absence of visual feedback. Air puff stimuli produced significant decreases in mean eye velocity too, but in addition to these changes in saccade kinematics, they produced much larger and more variable perturbations of the two-dimensional saccade trajectories. Even so, the endpoints of blink-perturbed saccades obtained under both test conditions remained as accurate and as precise as those observed in the control condition. We hypothesize that the reduction in mean eye velocity is not caused by a trigeminal reactivation of brain stem omnipause neurons but could instead arise from a trigeminal transient inhibition of saccade-related activity in the midbrain superior colliculus (SC). These findings support the theory that blink-perturbed saccades are programmed as slow, but straight, saccades onto which blink-related eye movements are superimposed. This linear superposition occurs downstream from the SC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据