4.2 Article

Effect of maintaining neck flexion on anti-saccade reaction time: an investigation using transcranial magnetic stimulation to the frontal oculomotor field

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1880-6805-32-21

关键词

Neck flexion; Brain activation; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Frontal oculomotor field; Anti-saccade reaction time

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reaction time for anti-saccade, in which the gaze is directed to the position opposite to an illuminated target, shortens during maintenance of neck flexion. The present study applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the frontal oculomotor field, and investigated the effect of maintaining neck flexion on information processing time in the anti-saccade neural pathway before the frontal oculomotor field. Methods: The reaction time was measured with the chin resting on a stand ('chin-on' condition) and with voluntary maintenance of neck flexion ('chin-off' condition) at 80% maximal neck flexion angle, with and without TMS. The TMS timing producing the longest prolongation of the reaction time was first roughly identified for 10 ms intervals from 0 to 180 ms after the target presentation. Thereafter, TMS timing was set finely at 2 ms intervals from -20 to +20 ms of the 10 ms step that produced the longest prolongation. Results: The reaction time without TMS was significantly shorter (21.9 ms) for the chin-off (235.9 +/- 14.9 ms) than for the chin-on (257.5 +/- 17.1 ms) condition. Furthermore, TMS timing producing maximal prolongation of the reaction time was significantly earlier (18.6 ms) for the chin-off than the chin-on condition. The ratio of the forward shift in TMS timing relative to the reduction in reaction time was 87.8%. Conclusions: We confirmed that information processing time in the anti-saccade neural pathway before the frontal oculomotor field shortened while neck flexion was maintained, and that this reduction time accounted for approximately 88% of the shortening of reaction time.

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

4.2
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