A competitive integration model of exogenous and endogenous eye movements

We present a model of the eye movement system in which the programming of an eye movement is the result of the competitive integration of information in the superior colliculi (SC). This brain area receives input from occipital cortex, the frontal eye fields, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, on the basis of which it computes the location of the next saccadic target. Two critical assumptions in the model are that cortical inputs are not only excitatory, but can also inhibit saccades to specific locations, and that the SC continue to influence the trajectory of a saccade while it is being executed. With these assumptions, we account for many neurophysiological and behavioral findings from eye movement research. Interactions within the saccade map are shown to account for effects of distractors on saccadic reaction time (SRT) and saccade trajectory, including the global effect and oculomotor capture. In addition, the model accounts for express saccades, the gap effect, saccadic reaction times for antisaccades, and recorded responses from neurons in the SC and frontal eye fields in these tasks. © The Author(s) 2010

No evidence for a saccadic range effect for visually guided and memory-guided saccades in simple saccade-targeting tasks

International audienceSaccades to single targets in peripheral vision are typically characterized by an undershoot bias. Putting this bias to a test, Kapoula [1] used a paradigm in which observers were presented with two different sets of target eccentricities that partially overlapped each other. Her data were suggestive of a saccadic range effect (SRE): There was a tendency for saccades to overshoot close targets and undershoot far targets in a block, suggesting that there was a response bias towards the center of eccentricities in a given block. Our Experiment 1 was a close replication of the original study by Kapoula [1]. In addition, we tested whether the SRE is sensitive to top-down requirements associated with the task, and we also varied the target presentation duration. In Experiments 1 and 2, we expected to replicate the SRE for a visual discrimination task. The simple visual saccade-targeting task in Experiment 3, entailing minimal top-down influence, was expected to elicit a weaker SRE. Voluntary saccades to remembered target locations in Experiment 3 were expected to elicit the strongest SRE. Contrary to these predictions, we did not observe a SRE in any of the tasks. Our findings complement the results reported by Gillen et al. [2] who failed to find the effect in a saccade-targeting task with a very brief target presentation. Together, these results suggest that unlike arm movements, saccadic eye movements are not biased towards making saccades of a constant, optimal amplitude for the task

Nicotine differentially modulates antisaccade performance in healthy male non-smoking volunteers stratified for low and high accuracy

RATIONALE: Nicotinergic agents are currently examined as possible pro-cognitive drugs for a variety of clinical conditions marked by cognitive deficits, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or schizophrenia. The response to acute nicotine is heterogeneous across subjects and samples; however, only a few reliable predictors of response have been identified. OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that baseline performance level in cognitive control may be a predictor of the cognitive effects of nicotine. METHODS: We tested 28 healthy Caucasian, male, non-smoking volunteers with the antisaccade task, an oculomotor measure of cognitive control. Participants were given a 7-mg nicotine patch in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, counterbalanced, within-subjects design. Subjects were stratified into high and low performers based on their antisaccade error rate in the placebo condition (median split). RESULTS: Nicotine tended to reduce response time variability of prosaccade latency (p = 0.06). There was no main effect of nicotine on antisaccade error rate (p = 0.31). However, nicotine significantly reduced antisaccade error rate in the low-accuracy probands while leaving performance of the high-accuracy probands unaffected (interaction, p < 0.05). Furthermore, we found a nicotine-induced reduction of response time variability of antisaccade latency at one target location in the low-performing group (interaction, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present results demonstrate the importance of baseline performance differences for the effectiveness of pharmacological enhancement of cognitive control. More generally, the results suggest that stimulation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor system might be an effective way of improving cognition in people with poor cognitive performance, such as patients with ADHD or schizophrenia

The antisaccade task: visual distractors elicit a location-independent planning \u27cost\u27

The presentation of a remote - but not proximal - distractor concurrent with target onset increases prosaccade reaction times (RT) (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). The competitive integration model asserts that the RDE represents the time required to resolve the conflict for a common saccade threshold between target- and distractor-related saccade generating commands in the superior colliculus. To our knowledge however, no previous research has examined whether remote and proximal distractors differentially influence antisaccade RTs. This represents a notable question because antisaccades require decoupling of the spatial relations between stimulus and response (SR) and therefore provide a basis for determining whether the sensory- and/or motor-related features of a distractor influence response planning. Participants completed pro- and antisaccades in a target-only condition and conditions wherein the target was concurrently presented with a proximal or remote distractor. As expected, prosaccade RTs elicited a reliable RDE. In contrast, antisaccade RTs were increased independent of the distractor\u27s spatial location and the magnitude of the effect was comparable across each distractor location. Thus, distractor-related antisaccade RT costs are not accounted for by a competitive integration between conflicting saccade generating commands. Instead, we propose that a visual distractor increases uncertainty related to the evocation of the response-selection rule necessary for decoupling SR relations

No evidence for a saccadic range effect for visually guided and memory-guided saccades in simple saccade-targeting tasks

International audienceSaccades to single targets in peripheral vision are typically characterized by an undershoot bias. Putting this bias to a test, Kapoula [1] used a paradigm in which observers were presented with two different sets of target eccentricities that partially overlapped each other. Her data were suggestive of a saccadic range effect (SRE): There was a tendency for saccades to overshoot close targets and undershoot far targets in a block, suggesting that there was a response bias towards the center of eccentricities in a given block. Our Experiment 1 was a close replication of the original study by Kapoula [1]. In addition, we tested whether the SRE is sensitive to top-down requirements associated with the task, and we also varied the target presentation duration. In Experiments 1 and 2, we expected to replicate the SRE for a visual discrimination task. The simple visual saccade-targeting task in Experiment 3, entailing minimal top-down influence, was expected to elicit a weaker SRE. Voluntary saccades to remembered target locations in Experiment 3 were expected to elicit the strongest SRE. Contrary to these predictions, we did not observe a SRE in any of the tasks. Our findings complement the results reported by Gillen et al. [2] who failed to find the effect in a saccade-targeting task with a very brief target presentation. Together, these results suggest that unlike arm movements, saccadic eye movements are not biased towards making saccades of a constant, optimal amplitude for the task

Bioturbation of sediments by benthic macroinvertebrates and fish and its implication for pond ecosystems: a review

Bioturbation of bottom sediments at the sediment–water interface is currently gaining more attention in studies dealing with the functioning of aquatic ecosystems. Such bioturbation can be caused by a variety of benthic macroinvertebrates or benthivorous fish that forage and burrow various bottom tubes, holes and pits. Thus, the processes involved may either be a result of direct interception by benthic animals, e.g., through bioresuspension of particles or through food ingestion and biodeposition, or of other indirect effects, e.g., changes in the physical properties of sediments or through the constructions mentioned above, along with corresponding changes in pond ecosystem functioning. The most distinct effect of benthivorous fish bioturbation activities is an increase in the turbidity of the water, which can lead to many subsequent knock-on effects, including inhibition of phytoplankton and submersed macrophyte growth with resulting alterations in physico-chemical water conditions. The importance of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in bioturbation processes is also indicated by an increase in the numbers of resting cyanobacterial colonies recruited due to bioturbation of bottom sediments