Biomedical subjects

R S Gellman

Publications and source records attributed to R S Gellman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1992

Eye position signals in human saccadic processing.

1. We studied saccades to briefly flashed targets in 8 human subjects. The target flash occurred (i) during smooth pursuit ("ramp-flash"), (ii) just before a saccade to another target ("step-flash"), or (iii) during steady fixation ("flash only"). All lights were extinguished after the target flash so that smooth pursuit or saccadic eye movements occurred during the interval of complete darkness between the target flash and the saccade to it. We compared these saccades to those made without intervening eye movement (flash only), and quantified the extent to which the saccadic system compensated for the change in eye position that occurred during the dark interval. 2. Saccades to control flashes were reasonably accurate (mean gain 0.87) and consistent. Compensation for the intervening eye movement in the ramp-flash and step-flash paradigms was highly variable from trial to trial. On average, subjects compensated for 27% of the intervening pursuit eye movement on ramp-flash trials and for 58% of intervening saccadic movement on step-flash trials. 3. Multiple regression analysis showed that the variability did not depend on factors such as variations in underlying saccadic gain, response latency, timing of stimuli or size of the required response. We conclude that this variability is intrinsic to saccadic responses that require the use of an eye position signal. 4. These results show that an eye position signal is available to the saccadic system but that this signal has low fidelity.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Brain↗

PubMed1992

Control strategies in directing the hand to moving targets.

We have evaluated the use of visual information about the movement of a target in two tasks--tracking and interceptions--involving multi-joint reaching movements with the arm. Target velocity was either varied in a pseudorandom order (random condition) or was kept constant (predictable condition) across trials. Response latency decreased as target velocity increased in each condition. A simple model that assumes that latency is the sum of two components--the time taken for target motion to be detected, and a fixed processing time--provides a good fit to the data. Results from a step-ramp experiment, in which the target stepped a small distance immediately preceding the onset of the ramp motion, were consistent with this model. The characteristics of the first 100 ms of the response depended on the amount of information about target motion available to the subject. In the tracking task with randomly varied target velocities, the initial changes in hand velocity were largely independent of target velocity. In contrast, when the velocity was predictable the initial hand velocity depended on target velocity. Analogously, the initial changes in the direction of hand motion in the interception task were independent of target velocity in the random condition, but depended on target velocity in the predictable condition. The time course for development of response dependence was estimated by controlling the amount of visual information about target velocity available to the subject before the onset of limb movement. The results suggest that when target velocity was random, hand movement started before visual motion processing was complete. The response was subsequently adjusted after target velocity was computed. Subjects displayed idiosyncratic strategies during the catch-up phase in the tracking task. The peak hand velocity depended on target velocity and was similar for all subjects. The time at which the peak occurred, in contrast, varied substantially among subjects. In the interception task the hand paths were straighter in the predictable than in the random condition. This appeared to be the result of making adjustments in movement direction in the former condition to correct for initially inappropriate responses.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed1991

Motion processing for saccadic eye movements in humans.

1. We studied the latencies and amplitudes of saccades to moving targets in normal human subjects. Targets underwent ramp or step-ramp motions. The goal was to determine how the saccadic system uses information about target velocity. 2. For simple ramp motion saccadic latency decreased as target speed increased. A threshold distance model, which assumes that the target has to move a minimum distance before saccadic processing starts, provided a good fit to the responses of all four subjects and explains discrepancies between previously published findings. 3. A double step experiment showed that target position may have some effect on saccadic amplitude when sampled approximately 70 ms before saccade onset, but it must be sampled at least 140 ms before onset for an accurate saccade to occur. 4. Saccades to simple ramp targets approximated the target position 55 ms before saccade onset. Based on our double step results, this is more compensation than possible by a simple position estimate and implies extrapolation of target motion by the saccadic system. The lack of complete compensation may be due to an underestimate of the target speed and/or of the saccadic latency. 5. A delayed-saccade paradigm resulted in saccades with a longer, constant latency and allowed longer viewing of target motion. These saccades accounted for all but approximately 20 ms of target motion, suggesting that with more processing time of target motion a better extrapolation may be generated. 6. In a step-ramp paradigm the target stepped in one direction, then moved smoothly in the opposite direction. Saccades in this paradigm could be made in either the direction of the step or in the direction of target motion: the direction and latency were determined solely by the time at which the target crossed the fixation point. This time must be calculated from target speed and position, implying that the saccadic system must use speed information to adjust latency or to cancel unnecessary saccades.

Humans↗

PubMed1991

Early responses to double-step targets are independent of step amplitude.

We used a double-step paradigm to examine saccadic responses occurring at short intervals (50-150 ms) after the presentation of a 2-8 degrees step. Saccades occurring 60-110 ms after the second step had amplitudes independent of the step size. The amplitudes scaled to step size for intervals greater than 110 ms. These findings suggest that there is an early period of saccadic goal processing during which only information about the hemispheric location, but not the amplitude, of the target motion is available.

Humans↗

PubMed1990

Short latency ocular-following responses in man.

The ocular-following responses elicited by brief unexpected movements of the visual scene were studied in human subjects. Response latencies varied with the type of stimulus and decreased systematically with increasing stimulus speed but, unlike those of monkeys, were not solely determined by the temporal frequency generated by sine-wave stimuli. Minimum latencies (70-75 ms) were considerably shorter than those reported for other visually driven eye movements. The magnitude of the responses to sine-wave stimuli changed markedly with stimulus speed and only slightly with spatial frequency over the ranges used. When normalized with respect to spatial frequency, all responses shared the same dependence on temporal frequency (band-pass characteristics with a peak at 16 Hz), indicating that temporal frequency, rather than speed per se, was the limiting factor over the entire range examined. This suggests that the underlying motion detectors respond to the local changes in luminance associated with the motion of the scene. Movements of the scene in the immediate wake of a saccadic eye movement were on average twice as effective as movements 600 ms later: post-saccadic enhancement. Less enhancement was seen in the wake of saccade-like shifts of the scene, which themselves elicited weak ocular following, something not seen in the wake of real saccades. We suggest that there are central mechanisms that, on the one hand, prevent the ocular-following system from tracking the visual disturbances created by saccades but, on the other, promote tracking of any subsequent disturbance and thereby help to suppress post-saccadic drift. Partitioning the visual scene into central and peripheral regions revealed that motion in the periphery can exert a weak modulatory influence on ocular-following responses resulting from motion at the center. We suggest that this may help the moving observer to stabilize his/her eyes on nearby stationary objects.

Humans↗