JN Miami Valley Hospital
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Neurophysiol 96: 461-465, 2006. First published May 3, 2006; doi:10.1152/jn.00152.2006
0022-3077/06 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
96/1/461    most recent
00152.2006v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berryhill, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, H. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Berryhill, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Hughes, H. C.

REPORT

Smooth Pursuit of Nonvisual Motion

Marian E. Berryhill, Tanya Chiu and Howard C. Hughes

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire

Submitted 13 February 2006; accepted in final form 26 April 2006

Unlike saccades, smooth pursuit eye movements (SPEMs) are not under voluntary control and their initiation generally requires a moving visual target. However, there are various reports of limited smooth pursuit of the motion of a subject’s own finger in total darkness (pursuit based on proprioceptive feedback) and to the combination of proprioception and tactile motion as an unseen finger was moved voluntarily over a smooth surface. In contrast, SPEMs to auditory motion are not distinguishable from pursuit of imagined motion. These reports of smooth pursuit of nonvisual motion cues used a variety of paradigms and different stimuli. In addition, the results have often relied primarily on qualitative descriptions of the smooth pursuit. Here, we directly compare measurements of smooth pursuit gain (eye velocity/stimulus velocity) to visual, auditory, proprioceptive, tactile, and combined tactile + proprioceptive motion stimuli. The results demonstrate high gains for visual pursuit, low gains for auditory pursuit, and intermediate, statistically indistinguishable gains for tactile, proprioceptive, and proprioceptive + tactile pursuit.

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: M. Berryhill, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, 6207 Moore Hall, Hanover, NH 03755






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2006 by the The American Physiological Society.