Literature DB >> 16832682

Quantitative differences in smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements.

M R Burke1, G R Barnes.   

Abstract

Recently it has been suggested that smooth pursuit (SP) and saccadic (SAC) eye movements share many common brain substrates in the planning and control of eye movements (Krauzlis in J Neurophysiol 91:591-603, 2004). Evidence is mounting that these two types of eye movements may also share similar mechanisms used to drive both reactive and predictive eye movement responses (Missal and Keller in J Neurophysiol 88:1880-1892, 2002, Keller and Missal in Ann NY Acad Sci 1004:29-39, 2003). The objective of this study was to quantify these similarities by establishing whether the behavioural response properties of human eye movements to predictive (PRD) and randomized (RND) conditions are quantitatively similar for both SP and SAC in directly comparable paradigms. Two previous studies have attempted to evaluate the coordination and motor preparation time of SP and saccadic eye movements (Erkelens in Vis Res 46:163-170, 2006; Joiner and Shelhamer in Exp Brain Res, Epub ahead of print, 2006). However, no previous study has quantitatively evaluated PRD and RND conditions to discretely presented SP and SAC tasks. We used simple SAC and SP paradigms in blocks of PRD and RND presentations, with eye movements monitored throughout using an IR-limbus eye-tracking system (Skalar). Twelve normal subjects (aged between 20 and 39 years) participated in the study which took place over two recording sessions, on two separate days. Data were analysed for two main comparable descriptive statistics: latency and eye velocity/displacement gain. The results presented here support the notion that SP and SAC share common brain substrates/mechanisms in the generation of responses to PRD and RND visual targets but differ in the movement preparation time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16832682     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0576-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  48 in total

1.  Suppression of displacement in severely slowed saccades.

Authors:  M R MacAskill; T J Anderson; R D Jones
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Cancelling of pursuit and saccadic eye movements in humans and monkeys.

Authors:  Krista Kornylo; Natalie Dill; Melissa Saenz; Richard J Krauzlis
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Human ocular pursuit during the transient disappearance of a visual target.

Authors:  Simon J Bennett; Graham R Barnes
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Occurrence of human express saccades depends on stimulus uncertainty and stimulus sequence.

Authors:  M Jüttner; W Wolf
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Prediction and a stationary, structured visual background influence the dynamics of the smooth-pursuit offset in humans.

Authors:  W Scheuerer; U Büttner; A Straube
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  The effect of the gap paradigm on the latency of human smooth pursuit of eye movement.

Authors:  P C Knox
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1996-11-25       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Countermanding saccades in humans.

Authors:  D P Hanes; R H Carpenter
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Pursuit and saccadic eye movement subregions in human frontal eye field: a high-resolution fMRI investigation.

Authors:  Caterina Rosano; Christine M Krisky; Joel S Welling; William F Eddy; Beatriz Luna; Keith R Thulborn; John A Sweeney
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.357

9.  The use of non-motion-based cues to pre-programme the timing of predictive velocity reversal in human smooth pursuit.

Authors:  Christian Jarrett; Graham Barnes
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-05-13       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Human smooth pursuit: stimulus-dependent responses.

Authors:  J R Carl; R S Gellman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 2.714

View more
  6 in total

1.  Aging does not affect integration times for the perception of depth from motion parallax.

Authors:  Jessica Holmin; Mark Nawrot
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  The effects of aging on the perception of depth from motion parallax.

Authors:  Jessica Holmin; Mark Nawrot
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Motion parallax thresholds for unambiguous depth perception.

Authors:  Jessica Holmin; Mark Nawrot
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Incremental angular vestibulo-ocular reflex adaptation to active head rotation.

Authors:  Michael C Schubert; Charles C Della Santina; Mark Shelhamer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 5.  Saccadic eye movement applications for psychiatric disorders.

Authors:  Juliana Bittencourt; Bruna Velasques; Silmar Teixeira; Luis F Basile; José Inácio Salles; Antonio Egídio Nardi; Henning Budde; Mauricio Cagy; Roberto Piedade; Pedro Ribeiro
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 2.570

6.  Children and older adults exhibit distinct sub-optimal cost-benefit functions when preparing to move their eyes and hands.

Authors:  Claudia C Gonzalez; Mark Mon-Williams; Melanie R Burke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.