PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Schlag-Rey

Publications and source records attributed to M Schlag-Rey.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Interaction of the two frontal eye fields before saccade onset.

A normal environment often contains many objects of interest that compete to attract our gaze. Nevertheless, instead of initiating a flurry of conflicting signals, central populations of oculomotor neurons always seem to agree on the destination of the next saccade. How is such a consensus achieved? In a unit recording and microstimulation study on trained monkeys, we sought to elucidate the mechanism through which saccade-related cells in the frontal eye fields (FEF) avoid issuing competing commands. Presaccadic neuronal activity was recorded in one FEF while stimulating the contralateral FEF with low-intensity currents that evoked saccades. When an eye-movement cell was isolated, we determined: the movement field of the cell, the cell's response to contralateral FEF microstimulation, the cell's response when the evoked saccade was in the preferred direction of the cell (using the collision technique to deviate appropriately the evoked saccade vector), and the cell's response to a stimulation applied during a saccade in the cell's preferred direction, to reveal a possible inhibitory effect. Complete results were obtained for 71 stimulation-recording pairs of FEF sites. The unit responses observed were distributed as follows: 35% of the cells were unaffected, 37% were inhibited, and 20% excited by contralateral stimulation. These response types depended on the site of contralateral stimulation and did not vary when saccades were redirected by collision. This invariant excitation or inhibition of cells, seemingly due to hardwired connections, depended on the angular difference between their preferred vector and the vector represented by the cells stimulated. By contrast, 8% of the cells were either activated or inhibited depending on the vector of the saccade actually evoked by collision. These results suggest that the consensus between cells of oculomotor structures at the time of saccade initiation is implemented by functional connections such that the cells that command similar movements mutually excite each other while silencing those that would produce conflicting movements. Such a rule would be an effective implementation of a winner-take-all mechanism well suited to prevent conflicts.

Animals↗
PubMed1998

Interactions between natural and electrically evoked saccades. III. Is the nonstationarity the result of an integrator not instantaneously reset?

In the monkey, fixed-vector saccades evoked by superior colliculus (SC) stimulation when the animal fixates can be dramatically modified if the stimulation is applied during or immediately after an initial natural saccade. The vector is then deviated in the direction opposite to the displacement just accomplished as if it were compensating for part of the preceding trajectory. Recently, it was suggested that the amplitude of the compensatory deviation is related to the amplitude of the initial saccade linearly, and that the ratio between the two decreases exponentially as stimulation is applied later. These two findings (spatial linearity and temporal nonstationarity) were invoked as evidence for the noninstantaneous resetting of a feedback integrator. Such an integrator is included in most models of saccade generation for the specific purpose of terminating a saccade when it has reached its intended goal. However, the hypothesis of a feedback integrator in the process of being reset implies that the exponential decay of the compensatory deviation is temporally linked to the end of the initial saccade. We analyzed the time course of this decay in stimulation experiments performed at 24 SC sites in two monkeys. The results show that if the start of the exponential decay of compensation is assumed to be linked to the end of the initial saccade, then the relation between the amount of compensatory deviation and the amplitude of the initial saccade is not linear. On the other hand, it is possible to show a linear relation if the measurements of compensatory deviation are made in terms of delay of stimulation from the saccade beginning. We conclude that stimulating the SC just after a visually guided saccade does not seem to test the properties of a feedback integrator. Whether such an integrator is or is not resettable is not likely to be decided by this approach. Conversely, as the nonstationarity of compensation is linked to the beginning of the saccade, the nonstationarity seems to represent a property of an event occurring at saccade onset. We suggest that this event, close to the input of the oculomotor apparatus, is the summation of the visual signal with a damped signal of eye position or displacement.

Animals↗
PubMed1998

Primate antisaccades. I. Behavioral characteristics.

The antisaccade task requires a subject to make a saccade to an unmarked location opposite to a flashed stimulus. This task was originally designed to study saccades made to a goal specified by instructions. Interest for this paradigm surged after the discovery that frontal lobe lesions specifically and severely affect human performance of antisaccades while prosaccades (i.e., saccades directed to the visual stimulus) are facilitated. Training monkeys to perform antisaccades was rarely attempted in the past, and this study is the first one that describes in detail the properties of such antisaccades compared with randomly intermingled prosaccades of varying amplitude in all directions. Such randomization was found essential to force the monkeys to use the instruction cue (pro- or anti-) and the location cue (peripheral stimulus) provided within a trial rather than to direct their saccades to the location of past rewards. Each trial began with the onset of a central fixation target that conveyed by its shape the instruction to make a pro- or an antisaccade to a subsequent peripheral stimulus. In one version of the task, the monkey was allowed to make an immediate saccade to the goal; in a second version, the saccade had to wait for a go signal. Analyses of the accuracy, velocity, and latency of antisaccades compared with prosaccades were performed on a sample of 7,430 pro-/antisaccades in the "immediate saccade" task (delayed saccades suffering from known distortions). Error rates fluctuated approximately 25%. Results were the same for the two monkeys with respect to accuracy and velocity, but they differed in terms of reaction time. Both monkeys generated antisaccades to stimuli in all directions, at various eccentricities, but antisaccades were significantly less accurate and slower than prosaccades elicited by the same stimuli. Interestingly, saccades to the stimulus could be followed by appropriate antisaccades with no intersaccadic interval. Such instances are here referred to as "turnaround saccades." Because they occurred sometimes with a long latency, turnaround saccades did not simply reflect the cancellation of an early foveation reflex. Consistent with human data, latencies of one monkey were longer for antisaccades than for prosaccades, but the reverse was true for the other monkey who was trained differently. In summary, this study demonstrates the feasibility of providing a subhuman primate model of antisaccade performance, but at the same time it suggests some irreducible differences between human and monkey performance.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

Antisaccade performance predicted by neuronal activity in the supplementary eye field.

The voluntary control of gaze implies the ability to make saccadic eye movements specified by abstract instructions, as well as the ability to repress unwanted orientating to sudden stimuli. Both of these abilities are challenged in the antisaccade task, because it requires subjects to look at an unmarked location opposite to a flashed stimulus, without glancing at it. Performance on this task depends on the frontal/prefrontal cortex and related structures, but the neuronal operations underlying antisaccades are not understood. It is not known, for example, how excited visual neurons that normally trigger a saccade to a target (a prosaccade) can activate oculomotor neurons directing gaze in the opposite direction. Visual neurons might, perhaps, alter their receptive fields depending on whether they receive a pro- or antisaccade instruction. If the receptive field is not altered, the antisaccade goal must be computed and imposed from the top down to the appropriate oculomotor neurons. Here we show, using recordings from the supplementary eye field (a frontal cortex oculomotor centre) in monkeys, that visual and movement neurons retain the same spatial selectivity across randomly mixed pro- and antisaccade trials. However, these neurons consistently fire more before antisaccades than prosaccades with the same trajectories, suggesting a mechanism through which voluntary antisaccade commands can override reflexive glances.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

Perceived geometrical relationships affected by eye-movement signals.

To determine the location of visual objects relative to the observer, the visual system must take account not only of the location of the stimulus on the retina, but also of the direction of gaze. In contrast, the perceived spatial relationship between visual stimuli is normally assumed to depend on retinal information alone, and not to require information about eye position. We now show, however, that the perceived alignment of three dots-tested by a vernier alignment task-is systematically altered in the period immediately preceding a saccade. Thus, information about eye position can modify not only the perceived relationship of the entire retinal image to the observer, but also the relations between elements within the image. The processing of relative position and of egocentric (observer-centred) position may therefore be less distinct than previously believed.

Fixation, Ocular↗
PubMed1997

Colliding saccades evoked by frontal eye field stimulation: artifact or evidence for an oculomotor compensatory mechanism underlying double-step saccades?

What happens when the goal is changed before the movement is executed? Both the double-step and colliding saccade paradigms address this issue as they introduce a discrepancy between the retinal images of targets in space and the commands generated by the oculomotor system necessary to attain those targets. To maintain spatial accuracy under such conditions, transformations must update "retinal error' as eye position changes, and must also accommodate neural transmission delays in the system so that retinal and eye position information are temporally aligned. Different hypotheses have been suggested to account for these phenomena, based on observations of dissociable cortical and subcortical compensatory mechanisms. We now demonstrate how a single compensatory mechanism can be invoked to explain both double-step and colliding saccade paradigm results, based on the use of a damped signal of change in position that is used in both cases to update retinal error and, thereby, account for intervening movements. We conclude that the collision effect is not an artifact, but instead reveals a compensatory mechanism for saccades whose targets appear near the onset of a preceding saccade.

Brain Stem↗
PubMed1995

The use of egocentric and exocentric location cues in saccadic programming.

Theoretically, the location of a visual target can be encoded with respect to the locations of other stimuli in the visual image (exocentric cues), or with respect to the observer (egocentric cues). Egocentric localization in the oculomotor system has been shown to rely on an internal representation of eye position that inaccurately encodes the time-course of saccadic eye movements, resulting in the mislocalization of visual targets presented near the time of a saccade. In the present investigation, subjects were instructed to localize perisaccadic stimuli in the presence or absence of a visual stimulus that could provide exocentric location information. Saccadic localization was more accurate in the presence of the exocentric cue, suggesting that localization is based on a combination of exocentric and egocentric cues. These findings indicate the need to reassess previously reported neurophysiological studies of spatial accuracy and current models of oculomotor control, which have focused almost exclusively on the egocentric localization abilities of the brain.

Cues↗
PubMed1995

Illusory localization of stimuli flashed in the dark before saccades.

A photic stimulus flashed just before a saccade in the dark tends to be mislocalized in the direction of the saccade. This mislocalization is not only perceptual; it is also expressed by errors of ocular targeting. A particular situation arises if the point of light is flashed twice at the same place, the second time, just before a saccade. The point of light may appear at two different places even though neither the site of its retinal image nor the direction of gaze change between the flashes. Experiments were run on five human subjects, head fixed in the dark, with flashes repeated at the site of the saccade goal or at the initial point of fixation. In both cases, the test stimulus was mislocalized. However, its apparent displacement never produced the perception of a streak. Streaks were reported only when there was an actual stimulus movement on the retina (e.g. by flashing the stimulus during the saccade). Mislocalization did not occur if the two flashes were not separated by a dark interval. This implies that, as long as a steady stimulus remains continually visible, there is no updating of the internal representation of eye position assumed to be used for stimulus localization.

Fixation, Ocular↗
PubMed1992

Supplementary eye field: influence of eye position on neural signals of fixation.

Single units were recorded in the supplementary eye field of monkeys performing visual-oculomotor tasks. Two patterns of unit activity were observed while the animals fixated photic stimuli. One consisted of a step in tonic firing frequency (either an increase or a decrease, depending on the cell), lasting as long as fixation. The occurrence of this pattern did not require the continuous presence of a stimulus but the animal had to be provided with an incentive to fixate a given location. The other pattern was a monotonically varying firing rate dependent on the eye orientation along a particular axis, indicative of eye eccentricity in orbit.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

The frontal eye field provides the goal of saccadic eye movement.

Microstimulation of oculomotor regions in primate cortex normally evokes saccadic eye movements of stereotypic directions and amplitudes. The fixed-vector nature of the evoked movements is compatible with the creation of either an artificial retinal or motor error signal. However, when microstimulation is applied during an ongoing natural saccade, the starting eye position of the evoked movement differs from the eye position at stimulation onset (due to the latency of the evoked saccade). An analysis of the effect of this eye position discrepancy on the trajectory of the eventual evoked saccade can clarify the oculomotor role of the structure stimulated. The colliding saccade paradigm of microstimulation was used in the present study to investigate the type of signals conveyed by visual, visuomovement, and movement unit activities in the primate frontal eye field. Colliding saccades elicited from all sites were found to compensate for the portion of the initial movement occurring between stimulation and evoked movement onset, plus a portion of the initial movement occurring before stimulation. This finding suggests that activity in the frontal eye field encodes a retinotopic goal that is converted by a downstream structure into the vector of the eventual saccade.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

How the frontal eye field can impose a saccade goal on superior colliculus neurons.

Saccades were electrically evoked from the frontal eye field (FEF) of two trained monkeys while saccade-cells were recorded from the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus (SC). We found that FEF microstimulation, eliciting saccades of a given vector, excited SC saccade-cells encoding the same vector and inhibited all others. Such a mechanism can prevent competing commands from arising simultaneously in different structures.

Animals↗
PubMed1991

Primate supplementary eye field. II. Comparative aspects of connections with the thalamus, corpus striatum, and related forebrain nuclei.

The supplementary eye field (SEF) was defined electrophysiologically in behaving monkeys to study its connections with the diencephalon and corpus striatum. The specificity of SEF pathways was determined with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) histochemistry to compare its connections with those of the arcuate frontal eye field (FEF), contiguous dorsocaudal area 6 (6DC), and primary motor cortex (M1, arm/hand region). Results indicate that patterns of SEF connectivity were similar to the FEF and markedly different from areas 6DC and M1. Primary reciprocal thalamic pathways of the SEF were with the magnocellular ventral anterior (VA) nucleus, medial parvicellular VA, medial area X, and paralaminar medialis dorsalis (multiformis and parvicellularis). FEF showed similar connections but its most robust pathway was with MD rather than VA. In contrast, area 6DC showed the most extensive reciprocal connections with lateral VApc and lateral area X with only sparse connections with paralaminar MD. Area 6DC also exhibited reciprocal connections with the ventral lateral (VL) complex and the ventral posterior lateral nucleus, pars oralis (VPLo). M1 showed dense bidirectional connections with VPLo, and to a lesser extent, with VL. M1 pathways with the medial dorsal nucleus were negligible. All areas exhibited connections with the paracentral and central lateral nuclei and only M1 lacked connections with the central superior lateral nucleus. SEF and FEF exhibited similar efferent projections to the caudate and putamen. In the caudate, terminal fields were restricted to a central longitudinal core while those from area 6DC were more widely distributed. Eye field efferents were restricted to the putamen's face region while 6DC projections were more exuberant. The arm/hand region of M1 projected to the arm/hand region of the putamen. Pathways are discussed with respect to their significance in oculomotor control.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Primate supplementary eye field: I. Comparative aspects of mesencephalic and pontine connections.

WGA-HRP was used to examine projections to the brainstem from the supplementary eye field (SEF). The SEF was defined electrophysiologically in awake, behaving monkeys and connections were compared to those of the arcuate frontal eye field (FEF), area 6DC, and primary motor cortex. The SEF was found to have either direct or indirect connections with almost every known pre- and paraoculomotor structure of the brainstem. The SEF was found to project bilaterally to layers I and IV of a tangentially widespread region of the superior colliculus. Terminal label was evident in the pretectal olivary nucleus, nucleus of the optic tract, nucleus raphe interpositus (omnipause region), nucleus prepositus hypoglossi, the perioculomotor cap of the central gray, dorsal central gray, nucleus reticularis tegmenti pontis, nucleus reticularis pontis oralis, and to multiple nuclei of the basis pontis (most densely to the dorsomedial nucleus). Bilateral projections were found in the parvicellular red nucleus. Reciprocal connections were present in the nucleus limitans, the mesencephalic reticular formation, locus coeruleus, and the serotonergic nuclei of the raphe complex (dorsalis and central superior). Overall patterns of connectivity were similar to those of the FEF and markedly different from those of the contiguous dorsocaudal area 6 or primary motor cortex. It was concluded that observed patterns of SEF-brainstem connectivity further justifies viewing this region as a distinct eye field that is likely to serve preparatory and trigger functions in the generation of saccadic eye movements.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Colliding saccades may reveal the secret of their marching orders.

Saccades are fast eye movements by which objects of interest are sought and captured. Their brevity means that they can often be executed within the time taken by visual impulses to reach the brain. Microstimulation, used in conjunction with single-unit recording, has become a powerful tool for analysing the role of central visuomotor structures in producing accurate saccades. This review presents the rationale of a test in which saccades are artificially elicited (evoked) while the eyes are moving. The presumed role in saccade production played by stimulated local neurons is inferred from the way trajectories of evoked saccades are deviated. The results suggest that the forebrain structures tested designate a goal expressed in retinocentric coordinates. To take into account an eye displacement that occurs during visual processing, the goal location must be recomputed; in this article, current views on how this might be accomplished are discussed in relation to observations made by unit recording.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Saccades can be aimed at the spatial location of targets flashed during pursuit.

1. If an eccentric, stationary target is flashed while a subject is performing an eye movement in the dark, can this subject make a saccade to the location in space where the target briefly appeared? Different predictions result from alternative hypotheses regarding the manner in which saccade goals are determined. Retinal error being defined as the vector from the eye position at the time of the flash to the position of the target, the retinal-error hypothesis predicts that the saccade vector will be equal to the retinal-error vector. This hypothesis assumes that the oculomotor system ignores the eye displacement between target presentation and saccade. If so, the target will be missed. In contrast, the spatial-error hypothesis predicts that the eye displacement is taken into account by the brain to calculate the target's physical location to which, therefore, a correct saccade could be aimed. 2. At issue is the generality of a fundamental principle of ocular targeting. Previous studies have established that, if the movement is saccadic, eye displacement is used by the oculomotor system to calculate the target's physical location. In the case of pursuit, perceptual experiments on humans suggest that eye displacement is taken into account although its velocity is underestimated. However, in a recent study McKenzie and Lisberger reported that saccade trajectories starting during pursuit conform to the retinal error hypothesis. In other words, velocity underestimation is close to 100%. 3. Although McKenzie and Lisberger's results are very clear, they might have depended on particular experimental conditions. The issue was reinvestigated in a situation facilitating the discrimination of stimuli.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Animals↗
PubMed1989

Interactions between natural and electrically evoked saccades. I. Differences between sites carrying retinal error and motor error signals in monkey superior colliculus.

Fixed-vector saccades evoked by electrical stimulation may result from the elicitation of a retinal error signal directing the eyes toward a goal, or from the elicitation of a motor error signal determining the vector itself. Theoretically, the two mechanisms can be differentiated by delivering the stimulation while the eyes are already in motion (colliding saccade paradigm), thereby changing the eye position from which the evoked saccade starts. Only in the first case is the trajectory of the evoked saccade expected to be modified to compensate for part of the ongoing eye movement. An attempt was made to distinguish retinal vs. motor error mechanisms by applying the colliding saccade paradigm of stimulation to 29 sites throughout the superior colliculus (SC) of two trained monkeys. Compensatory evoked saccades, as predicted by the retinal error hypothesis, were obtained consistently in the superficial layers and at deeper sites where visual unit responses could be recorded. Conversely, in deep layers where only presaccadic activity was found, evoked saccades either were not affected by collision or summed their vectors with that of the ongoing movement. These last observations are both consistent with the hypothesis that the signal produced from deep sites was an initial motor error. A second observation was incidentally made: when stimulation was applied to the most superficial SC region, it definitively erased the goal of the ongoing saccade, and the latter did not resume its interrupted course. The colliding saccade paradigm may be useful in clarifying the role of structures involved in oculomotor function.

Animals↗
PubMed1989

Interactions between natural and electrically evoked saccades. II. At what time is eye position sampled as a reference for the localization of a target?

Electrical microstimulation was applied at brain sites (thalamic internal medullary lamina complex and superficial layers of superior colliculus) of alert, trained monkeys to evoke fixed-vector saccades. When the stimulation was timed to occur during or after an eye movement, the evoked saccade had a modified trajectory, compensating for, at least, the last portion of the ongoing eye movement. The hypothesis proposed to explain this compensatory effect (Schlag-Rey et al. 1989) is that the electrical stimulation produces a saccade by generating a signal, equivalent to a retinal error, specifying the saccade goal at a fixed location with respect to some eye position (called reference eye position). If the eyes are moving at the time of stimulation, the reference eye position lies somewhere along the trajectory of the ongoing movement. In the present study, we tried to determine this reference eye position, and deduce from it the instant at which the goal was specified. A significant timing difference was observed between thalamic and collicular stimulations. The goal appeared to be referred to an eye position existing at stimulation onset in superior colliculus (SC), and 35-65 ms before stimulation onset in central thalamus. In the latter case, the results suggest that the evoked saccade was aimed at the spatial location that the brain computed by summing a retinal error signal (evoked by stimulation) with the eye position at the time such a signal would have been elicited by a real target. In contrast, the collicular results suggest that the evoked saccade was directed to the retinal location specified by the retinal error signal. The findings imply that if the eyes are not steady while the target position is calculated, signals conveyed in the superficial layers of SC (in contrast to the thalamus) cannot direct the eyes correctly to a visual target.

Animals↗