|
|
||||||||
REPORT
1Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Submitted 19 November 2004; accepted in final form 17 December 2004
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In a recent study, Port and Wurtz (2003)
presented monkeys with two targets with a small stimulus onset asynchrony while recording from single neurons at the two activated collicular sites. To predict the instantaneous direction of the saccade, they used the weighted vector average equation
![]() | (1) |
|
|
|
| MODEL |
|---|
|
|
|---|
![]() | (2) |
The output of the SC, Dt, drove two two-dimensional, push-pull versions of the local feedback model, which were implemented in a previous study (Barton et al. 2003
). These resemble the models of Grossman and Robinson (1988)
(
= 0.9) as well as Becker and Jürgens (1990)
(c = 0.05 or 0.3). Both performed equally well for the simulations reported in this study, and we report simulations only from the Grossman and Robinson (1988)
model.
In the models tested, an external trigger signal is used to silence omnipause neurons (OPNs) and permit saccade initiation (Robinson 1975
). The onset of the trigger is time-locked to the activity at the first activated locus (site A), and the offset is loosely associated with a reactivation of the OPNs. Unfortunately, there are no data to tell us how real OPNs respond on trials involving curved saccades. Because the purpose of this study was to examine the effect that the feedback loop has on the final direction, the OPNs were left off long enough to ensure that none of the saccades would be truncated before the curvature was completed.
| SIMULATIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Neural activity recorded during simultaneous and asynchronous target presentations does not always show a rapid attenuation of activity at one of the two SC sites (McPeek et al. 2003
; Port and Wurtz 2003
). Modification of neural responses were noted in terms of the relative timing and level of activities at the two sites. Figure 3 shows the effects of manipulating the relative timing of the Gaussians for the two sites. The later the onset of activity at site B, the more the initial saccade direction is biased toward A. On the other hand, with longer delays in the onset of activity at site B, site A returns to baseline before B does, and the saccades curve toward B. When the relative height of the weight functions was manipulated with activity at the two sites having the same onset and offset times, the result was a group of straight averaging saccades (data not shown). In these simulations, the relative height of the Gaussians determined the endpoints. Because the focus was on saccade curvature, we also ran these simulations with a 20-ms difference in time of peak activity. This resulted in various initial directions, determined by the relative weights, and a late onset of curvature, determined by the 20-ms difference in offset times (Fig. 4).
|
![]() | (3) |
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The denominator terms in Eqs. 1 and 2 create a fundamental dissociation in the predictions of the two models. This difference has important consequences that may be best understood by considering what the output of each equation would be after activity at one collicular site has gone to zero (fat ba = wat = 0). In Eq. 1 (Port and Wurtz 2003
), as the firing rate for the second site declines during the latter part of the saccade, the normalized firing rate term gets smaller (Vmodelt
0), and the small changes are in the direction of Vb relative to the instantaneous eye position. As a result, the predicted saccade slows, as noted by the closeness of consecutive time points in Fig. 4A of Port and Wurtz (2003
). In essence, this equation predicts that the instantaneous firing rate of collicular neurons determines saccade velocity (i.e., the correlation between the firing rate for the neuron and the predicted instantaneous velocity will be approximately 1). Therefore this equation is appropriate only if one starts from the premise that SC is within the local feedback loop, but even then it fails to predict the final direction (Port and Wurtz 2003
). Had we treated Eq.1 as SC output that is upstream from the local feedback loop, then the model would produce a looping trajectory that brings the eyes back to the initial position at the end of the movement, which is not the observed behavior.
In the implementation of Eq. 2, once wat = 0, the SC output becomes constant, even as activity at the second site is decreasing (wbt
0). This configuration implies that the desired displacement is encoded by the locus of activity, not the instantaneous firing rate at site two after activity at site one has returned to baseline. In contrast, when activity is present at both sites, the SC output is determined by the relative activity at the two sites. It should be stressed, however, that the final direction of the curved saccade is determined by the feedback loop not by Eq. 2. In the scenario described in the preceding text, only one collicular site is active during the latter portion of the movement. This site continues to generate the same desired displacement command that it would have if it had been the only active site all along. The saccade curves only because the downstream comparator measures the difference between the changing desired displacement signal and the actual displacement readout of the resettable integrator.
As discussed in the preceding text, the model we simulated assumes that the SC is upstream from the local feedback loop that controls saccade dynamics. Consistent with this hypothesis is the observation that the firing rate of collicular neurons is not a good predictor of dynamic motor error in studies involving saccade perturbation (Goossens and Van Opstal 2000
; Keller and Edelman 1994
; Keller et al. 2000
). Our assumption, however, does not preclude the SC from receiving static feedback information (Gandhi and Sparks 2004
) that could update the metrics of the desired saccade (Keller and Edelman 1994
; Keller et al. 2000
) or the duration of the collicular burst (Soetedjo et al. 2002
) but does not determine the direction and velocity of the saccade (Lefèvre et al. 1998
; Quaia et al. 1999
). Such feedback could be mediated through the cerebellum (Leferve et al. 1998
; Quaia et al. 1999
) and/or other regions (Soetedjo et al. 2002
; Waitzman et al. 1996
).
In a recent model of saccade control (Lefévre et al. 1998
; Quaia et al. 1999
), the SC is placed upstream from the local feedback loop and the cerebellum is placed within the local feedback loop. In this model, there is no cross-coupling between the horizontal and vertical premotor burst neurons. Instead, the trajectory of oblique saccades is controlled by the dynamic pattern of activity in the oculomotor region of the fastigial nucleus. This mechanism gives the system some ability to compensate for unexpected deviations of the saccade from the optimal (straight) trajectory. For oblique saccades, this means that differences in the timing of activation of the horizontal and vertical premotor burst neurons can result in curved oblique saccades that still land on target, even without cross-coupling. It is important to note, however, that this type of curvature is associated with activity at only a single SC site. More to the point, the curvature of oblique saccades to single targets results from the normal action of the feedback loop in a situation in which desired displacement remains constant throughout the saccade. In contrast, the curvature that we are concerned with is associated with more than one competing visual target and activity at two SC sites. In this situation, the curvature occurs because the desired displacement command changes during the saccade. Thus the curvature is often much larger than the curvature reported for oblique saccades to single targets.
In the Lefévre et al. (1998)
model, as in the models we tested, it is the local feedback loop that controls the direction of the saccade not the SC. In both models, the SC is placed upstream from the local feedback loop that controls saccade dynamics. Thus although some of the details differ, we believe that any model in which saccade dynamics are controlled downstream from SC would make similar corrections.
| GRANTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 The Supplementary Material for this article (a figure) is available online at http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/01199.2004/DC1. ![]()
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: N. J. Gandhi, Dept. Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (E-mail: neg8{at}pitt.edu)
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Becker W and Jürgens R. Human oblique saccades: quantitative analysis of the relation between horizontal and vertical components. Vision Res 30: 893920, 1990.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Gandhi NJ and Sparks DL. Changing views of the role of the superior colliculus in the control of gaze. In: The Visual Neurosciences, edited by Chalupa LM and Werner JS. Boston: MIT Press, 2004, p. 14491465.
Goossens HH and Van Opstal AJ. Blink-perturbed saccades in monkey. II. Superior colliculus activity. J Neurophysiol 83: 34303452, 2000.
Grossman GE and Robinson DA. Ambivalence in modelling oblique saccades. Biol Cybern 58: 1318, 1988.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Keller EL and Edelman JA. Use of interrupted saccade paradigm to study spatial and temporal dynamics of saccadic burst cells in superior colliculus in monkey. J Neurophysiol 72: 27542770, 1994.
Keller EL, Gandhi NJ, and Vijay Sekaran S. Activity in deep intermediate layer collicular neurons during interrupted saccades. Exp Brain Res 130: 227237, 2000.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Lefèvre P, Quaia C, and Optican LM. Distributed model of control of saccades by superior colliculus and cerebellum. Neural Netw 11: 11751190, 1998.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
McPeek RM, Han JH, and Keller EL. Competition between saccade goals in the superior colliculus produces saccade curvature. J Neurophysiol 89: 25772590, 2003.
Moschovakis AK. Neural network simulations of the primate oculomotor system. I. The vertical saccadic burst generator. Biol Cybern 70: 291302, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
Port NL and Wurtz RH. Sequential activity of simultaneously recorded neurons in the superior colliculus during curved saccades. J Neurophysiol 90: 18871903, 2003.
Quaia C, Lefevre P, and Optican LM. Model of the control of saccades by superior colliculus and cerebellum. J Neurophysiol 82: 9991018, 1999.
Robinson DA. Oculomotor control signals. In: Basic Mechanisms of Ocular Motility and Their Clinical Implications, edited by Bach-y-Rita P and Lennerstrand G. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1975, p. 337374.
Schall JD. The neural selection and control of saccades by the frontal eye field. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357: 10731082, 2002.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Scudder CA. A new local feedback model of the saccadic burst generator. J Neurophysiol 59: 14551475, 1988.
Smit AC and Van Gisbergen JA. An analysis of curvature in fast and slow human saccades. Exp Brain Res 81: 335345, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
Soetedjo R, Kaneko CR, and Fuchs AF. Evidence that the superior colliculus participates in the feedback control of saccadic eye movements. J Neurophysiol 87: 679695, 2002.
Tweed D and Vilis T. A two dimensional model for saccade generation. Biol Cybern 52: 219227, 1985.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Waitzman DM, Silakov VL, and Cohen B. Central mesencephalic reticular formation (cMRF) neurons discharging before and during eye movements. J Neurophysiol 75: 15461572, 1996.
Walton MMG, Gandhi NJ, Hu X, and Sparks DL. Local feedback loop can account for the final direction of curved saccades. Soc Neurosci Abstr 30: 990.9, 2004.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Murthy, S. Ray, S. M. Shorter, E. G. Priddy, J. D. Schall, and K. G. Thompson Frontal Eye Field Contributions to Rapid Corrective Saccades J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2007; 97(2): 1457 - 1469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. M. McPeek Incomplete Suppression of Distractor-Related Activity in the Frontal Eye Field Results in Curved Saccades J Neurophysiol, November 1, 2006; 96(5): 2699 - 2711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. McSorley, P. Haggard, and R. Walker Time Course of Oculomotor Inhibition Revealed by Saccade Trajectory Modulation J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2006; 96(3): 1420 - 1424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H.H.L.M. Goossens and A. J. Van Opstal Dynamic Ensemble Coding of Saccades in the Monkey Superior Colliculus J Neurophysiol, April 1, 2006; 95(4): 2326 - 2341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |