A common stochastic accumulator with effector-dependent noise can explain eye-hand coordination

The computational architecture that enables the flexible coupling between otherwise independent eye and hand effector systems is not understood. By using a drift diffusion framework, in which variability of the reaction time (RT) distribution scales with mean RT, we tested the ability of a common stochastic accumulator to explain eye-hand coordination. Using a combination of behavior, computational modeling and electromyography, we show how a single stochastic accumulator to threshold, followed by noisy effector-dependent delays, explains eye-hand RT distributions and their correlation, while an alternate independent, interactive eye and hand accumulator model does not. Interestingly, the common accumulator model did not explain the RT distributions of the same subjects when they made eye and hand movements in isolation. Taken together, these data suggest that a dedicated circuit underlies coordinated eye-hand planning.

Eye-hand coordination during a double-step task: evidence for a common stochastic accumulator

Many studies of reaching and pointing have shown significant spatial and temporal correlations between eye and hand movements. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether these correlations are incidental, arising from common inputs (independent model); whether these correlations represent an interaction between otherwise independent eye and hand systems (interactive model); or whether these correlations arise from a single dedicated eye-hand system (common command model). Subjects were instructed to redirect gaze and pointing movements in a double-step task in an attempt to decouple eye-hand movements and causally distinguish between the three architectures. We used a drift-diffusion framework in the context of a race model, which has been previously used to explain redirect behavior for eye and hand movements separately, to predict the pattern of eye-hand decoupling. We found that the common command architecture could best explain the observed frequency of different eye and hand response patterns to the target step. A common stochastic accumulator for eye-hand coordination also predicts comparable variances, despite significant difference in the means of the eye and hand reaction time (RT) distributions, which we tested. Consistent with this prediction, we observed that the variances of the eye and hand RTs were similar, despite much larger hand RTs (similar to 90 ms). Moreover, changes in mean eye RTs, which also increased eye RT variance, produced a similar increase in mean and variance of the associated hand RT. Taken together, these data suggest that a dedicated circuit underlies coordinated eye-hand planning.