JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (November 30, 2005). doi:10.1152/jn.00781.2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Videos
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/3/1527    most recent
00781.2005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sumner, P.
Right arrow Articles by Kennard, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sumner, P.
Right arrow Articles by Kennard, C.
Submitted on July 22, 2005
Accepted on November 26, 2005

Which visual pathways cause fixation-related inhibition?

Petroc Sumner1*, Parashkev Nachev1, Sarah Castor-Perry1, Heather Isenman1, and Christopher Kennard1

1 Department of Visual Neuroscience, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: p.sumner{at}imperial.ac.uk.

Visual stimuli can inhibit as well as activate motor mechanisms. In one well known example, the latency of saccadic eye movements is prolonged in the presence of a fixation stimulus, relative to the case in which the fixation stimulus disappears before the target appears. This automatic sensory-motor effect, known as the gap effect or fixation offset effect, has been associated with inhibitory connections within the superior colliculus (SC). Visual information is provided to the SC and other oculomotor areas, such as the frontal eye fields (FEF), mainly by the magnocellular geniculostriate pathway, and also by the retinotectal pathway. We tested whether signals in these pathways are necessary to create fixation-related inhibition, by employing stimuli invisible to them. We found that such stimuli, visible only to short wave sensitive cones (S cones), do produce fixation-related inhibition (including when warning effects were equated). We also demonstrate that this fixation-related inhibition cannot be explained by residual activation of luminance pathways, and must be caused by a route separate from that of luminance fixation signals. Thus there are at least two routes that cause fixation-related inhibition, and direct sensory input to the SC or FEF via the magnocellular or retinotectal pathways is not required. We discuss the implications that there may be both cortical and collicular mechanisms.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
A. Bompas, T. Sterling, R. D. Rafal, and P. Sumner
Naso-Temporal Asymmetry for Signals Invisible to the Retinotectal Pathway
J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2008; 100(1): 412 - 421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the The American Physiological Society.