HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 100/4/1848    most recent 90276.2008v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by van Wetter, S. M. C. I. Articles by van Opstal, A. J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Wetter, S. M. C. I. Articles by van Opstal, A. J.

Perisaccadic Mislocalization of Visual Targets by Head-Free Gaze Shifts: Visual or Motor?

Department of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Submitted 14 February 2008; accepted in final form 20 April 2008

Such perisaccadic mislocalization is maximal in the direction of the saccade and varies systematically with the target-saccade onset delay. We have recently shown that under head-fixed conditions perisaccadic errors do not follow the quantitative predictions of current visuomotor models that explain these mislocalizations in terms of spatial updating. These models all assume sluggish eye-movement feedback and therefore predict that errors should vary systematically with the amplitude and kinematics of the intervening saccade. Instead, we reported that errors depend only weakly on the saccade amplitude. An alternative explanation for the data is that around the saccade the perceived target location undergoes a uniform transient shift in the saccade direction, but that the oculomotor feedback is, on average, accurate. This "visual shift" hypothesis predicts that errors will also remain insensitive to kinematic variability within much larger head-free gaze shifts. Here we test this prediction by presenting a brief visual probe near the onset of gaze saccades between 40 and 70° amplitude. According to models with inaccurate gaze-motor feedback, the expected perisaccadic errors for such gaze shifts should be as large as 30° and depend heavily on the kinematics of the gaze shift. In contrast, we found that the actual peak errors were similar to those reported for much smaller saccadic eye movements, i.e., on average about 10°, and that neither gaze-shift amplitude nor kinematics plays a systematic role. Our data further corroborate the visual origin of perisaccadic mislocalization under open-loop conditions and strengthen the idea that efferent feedback signals in the gaze-control system are fast and accurate.