Mutual inhibition and capacity sharing during parallel preparation of serial eye movements

Many common activities, like reading, scanning scenes, or searching for an inconspicuous item in a cluttered environment, entail serial movements of the eyes that shift the gaze from one object to another. Previous studies have shown that the primate brain is capable of programming sequential saccadic eye movements in parallel. Given that the onset of saccades directed to a target are unpredictable in individual trials, what prevents a saccade during parallel programming from being executed in the direction of the second target before execution of another saccade in the direction of the first target remains unclear. Using a computational model, here we demonstrate that sequential saccades inhibit each other and share the brain's limited processing resources (capacity) so that the planning of a saccade in the direction of the first target always finishes first. In this framework, the latency of a saccade increases linearly with the fraction of capacity allocated to the other saccade in the sequence, and exponentially with the duration of capacity sharing. Our study establishes a link between the dual-task paradigm and the ramp-to-threshold model of response time to identify a physiologically viable mechanism that preserves the serial order of saccades without compromising the speed of performance.

Voluntary Control of Multisaccade Gaze Shifts During Movement Preparation and Execution

Ramakrishnan A, Chokhandre S, Murthy A. Voluntary control of multisaccade gaze shifts during movement preparation and execution. J Neurophysiol 103: 2400-2416, 2010. First published February 17, 2010; doi: 10.1152/jn.00843.2009. Although the nature of gaze control regulating single saccades is relatively well documented, how such control is implemented to regulate multisaccade gaze shifts is not known. We used highly eccentric targets to elicit multisaccade gaze shifts and tested the ability of subjects to control the saccade sequence by presenting a second target on random trials. Their response allowed us to test the nature of control at many levels: before, during, and between saccades. Although the saccade sequence could be inhibited before it began, we observed clear signs of truncation of the first saccade, which confirmed that it could be inhibited in midflight as well. Using a race model that explains the control of single saccades, we estimated that it took about 100 ms to inhibit a planned saccade but took about 150 ms to inhibit a saccade during its execution. Although the time taken to inhibit was different, the high subject-wise correlation suggests a unitary inhibitory control acting at different levels in the oculomotor system. We also frequently observed responses that consisted of hypometric initial saccades, followed by secondary saccades to the initial target. Given the estimates of the inhibitory process provided by the model that also took into account the variances of the processes as well, the secondary saccades (average latency similar to 215 ms) should have been inhibited. Failure to inhibit the secondary saccade suggests that the intersaccadic interval in a multisaccade response is a ballistic stage. Collectively, these data indicate that the oculomotor system can control a response until a very late stage in its execution. However, if the response consists of multiple movements then the preparation of the second movement becomes refractory to new visual input, either because it is part of a preprogrammed sequence or as a consequence of being a corrective response to a motor error.