Alpha-band power in the left frontal cortex discriminates the execution of fixed stimulus during saccadic eye movement

Introduction: The saccadic paradigm has been used to investigate specific cortical networks involving attention. The behavioral and electrophysiological investigations of the SEM contribute significantly to the understanding of attentive patterns presented of neurological and psychiatric disorders and sports performance. Objective: The current study aimed to investigate absolute alpha power changes in sensorimotor brain regions and the frontal eye fields during the execution of a saccadic task. Methods: Twelve healthy volunteers (mean age: 26.25; SD: +/- 4.13) performed a saccadic task while the electroencephalographic signal was simultaneously recorded for the cerebral cortex electrodes. The participants were instructed to follow the LEDs with their eyes, being submitted to two different task conditions: a fixed pattern versus a random pattern. Results: We found a moment main effect for the C3, C4, F3 and F4 electrodes and a condition main effect for the F3 electrode. We also found interaction between factor conditions and frontal electrodes. Conclusions: We conclude that absolute alpha power in the left frontal cortex discriminates the execution of the two stimulus presentation patterns during SEM. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Why do humans make antisaccade errors?

Antisaccade errors are attributed to failure to inhibit the habitual prosaccade. We investigated whether the amount of information about the required response the patient has before the trial begins also contributes to error rate. Participants performed antisaccades in five conditions. The traditional design had two goals on the left and right horizontal meridians. In the second condition, stimulus-goal confusability between trials was eliminated by displacing one goal upward. In the third, hemifield uncertainty was eliminated by placing both goals in the same hemifield. In the fourth, goal uncertainty was eliminated by having only one goal, but interspersed with no-go trials. The fifth condition eliminated all uncertainty by having the same goal on every trial. Antisaccade error rate increased by 2% with each additional source of uncertainty, with the main effect being hemifield information, and a trend for stimulus-goal confusability. A control experiment for the effects of increasing angular separation between targets without changing these types of prior response information showed no effects on latency or error rate. We conclude that other factors besides prosaccade inhibition contribute to antisaccade error rates in traditional designs, possibly by modulating the strength of goal activation.

Antisaccades generate two types of saccadic inhibition

To make an antisaccade away from a stimulus, one must also suppress the more reflexive prosaccade to the stimulus. Whether this inhibition is diffuse or specific for saccade direction is not known. We used a paradigm examining inter-trial carry-over effects. Twelve subjects performed sequences of four identical antisaccades followed by sequences of four prosaccades randomly directed at the location of the antisaccade stimulus, the location of the antisaccade goal, or neutral locations. We found two types of persistent antisaccade-related inhibition. First, prosaccades in any direction were delayed only in the first trial after the antisaccades. Second, prosaccades to the location of the antisaccade stimulus were delayed more than all other prosaccades, and this persisted from the first to the fourth subsequent trial. These findings are consistent with both a transient global inhibition and a more sustained focal inhibition specific for the location of the antisaccade stimulus.

The neural network of saccadic foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge about upcoming events may be exploited to optimize behavioural responses. In a previous work, using an eye movement paradigm, we showed that different types of partial foreknowledge have different effects on saccadic efficiency. In the current study, we investigated the neural circuitry involved in processing of partial foreknowledge using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Fourteen subjects performed a mixed antisaccade, prosaccade paradigm with blocks of no foreknowledge, complete foreknowledge or partial foreknowledge about stimulus location, response direction or task. We found that saccadic foreknowledge is processed primarily within the well-known oculomotor network for saccades and antisaccades. Moreover, we found a consistent decrease in BOLD activity in the primary and secondary visual cortex in all foreknowledge conditions compared to the no-foreknowledge conditions. Furthermore we found that the different types of partial foreknowledge are processed in distinct brain areas: response foreknowledge is processed in the frontal eye field, while stimulus foreknowledge is processed in the frontal and parietal eye field. Task foreknowledge, however, revealed no positive BOLD correlate. Our results show different patterns of engagement in the saccade-related neural network depending upon precisely what type of information is known ahead.