4.7 Review

What clinical disorders tell us about the neural control of saccadic eye movements

期刊

BRAIN
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 10-35

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awl309

关键词

cerebellum; macrosaccadic oscillations; opsoclonus; saccadic palsy; superior colliculus

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NEI NIH HHS [EY06717, EY01849, EY08060] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY006717, Z01EY000302, R01EY001849, R37EY001849] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Saccades are rapid eye movements that redirect the fovea from one object to another. A great deal has been learned about the anatomy and physiology of saccades, making them an ideal system for studying the neural control of movement. Basic research on normal eye movements has greatly increased our understanding of saccadic performance, anatomy and physiology, and led to a large number of control system models. These models simulate normal saccades well, but are challenged by clinical disorders because they often do not incorporate the specific anatomical and physiological substrates needed to model clinically important abnormalities. Historically, studies of saccadic abnormalities in patients have played a critical role in understanding the neural control of saccades because they provide information that complements basic research and thus restricts hypotheses to those that are biologically plausible. This review presents four examples of clinical disorders (slow saccades, interrupted saccades, high-frequency saccadic oscillations and macrosaccadic oscillations) that have provided insights into the neurobiology of saccades, have driven the development of new models, and have suggested an explanation or treatment for these disorders. We raise general questions for both scientists and clinicians that will assist in their efforts to understand the neural control of movement, improve diagnostic criteria and develop new treatments.

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

4.7
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