Effect of inactivation of the cortical frontal eye field on saccades generated in a choice response paradigm.
Previous studies using muscimol inactivations in the frontal eye fields (FEFs) have shown that saccades generated by recall from working memory are eliminated by these lesions, whereas visually guided saccades are relatively spared. In these experiments, we made reversible inactivations in FEFs in alert macaque monkeys and examined the effect on saccades in a choice response task. Our task required monkeys to learn arbitrary pairings between colored stimuli and saccade direction. Following inactivations, the percentage of choice errors increased as a function of the number of alternative (NA) pairings. In contrast, the percentage of dysmetric saccades (saccades that landed in the correct quadrant but were inaccurate) did not vary with NA. Saccade latency increased postlesion but did not increase with NA. We also made simultaneous inactivations in both FEFs. The results following bilateral lesions showed approximately twice as many choice errors. We conclude that the FEFs are involved in the generation of saccades in choice response tasks. The dramatic effect of NA on choice errors, but the lack of an effect of NA on motor errors or response latency, suggests that two types of processing are interrupted by FEF lesions. The first involves the formation of a saccadic intention vector from associate memory inputs, and the second, the execution of the saccade from the intention vector. An alternative interpretation of the first result is that a role of the FEFs may be to suppress incorrect responses. The doubling of choice errors following bilateral FEF lesions suggests that the effect of unilateral lesions is not caused by a general inhibition of the lesioned side by the intact side.
Keller
Edward L
EL
Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Inst., 2318 Fillmore St., San Francisco, CA 94563, USA. elk@ski.org
Lee
Kyoung-Min
KM
Park
Se-Woong
SW
Hill
Jessica A
JA
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning / Q000502:physiology; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D002755:Choice Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D004558:Electric Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D005123:Eye; D005625:Frontal Lobe / Q000502:physiology*; D018755:GABA Agonists / Q000494:pharmacology; D008253:Macaca mulatta; D008297:Male; D009118:Muscimol / Q000494:pharmacology; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology; D012438:Saccades / Q000502:physiology*; D014794:Visual Fields / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology*; D014795:Visual Pathways / Q000502:physiology
D018755:GABA Agonists; D009118:Muscimol
J Neurosci. 2002 Nov 15;22(22):9877-84
12427844
J Neurophysiol. 1998 Jan;79(1):64-72
9425177
J Neurophysiol. 1980 Dec;44(6):1175-89
6778974
Trends Neurosci. 2000 Jun;23(6):271-6
10838597
Exp Brain Res. 1997 Sep;116(2):229-49
9348123
Neuroimage. 2006 Oct 15;33(1):307-15
16919481
Exp Brain Res. 2005 Apr;162(3):278-86
15827738
Nat Neurosci. 1998 Jul;1(3):248-53
10195151
J Neurophysiol. 2000 Apr;83(4):1979-2001
10758109
Nature. 1996 Jun 20;381(6584):697-9
8649514
Neuroreport. 1999 Apr 26;10(6):1315-22
10363946
Vision Res. 1992 Feb;32(2):365-73
1574851
J Neurosci. 2008 Feb 27;28(9):2242-51
18305257
Rev Oculomot Res. 1989;3:283-313
2486326
Rev Oculomot Res. 1988;2:365-429
3153653
Exp Brain Res. 2008 Apr;186(3):355-64
18193416
J Neurophysiol. 1999 May;81(5):2191-214
10322059
Eur J Neurosci. 2003 Dec;18(11):3127-33
14656309
J Neurophysiol. 2001 Oct;86(4):2041-53
11600660
J Neurophysiol. 1985 Sep;54(3):714-34
4045546