Nagel M, Sprenger A, Lencer R, Kömpf D, Siebner H, Heide W
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, Luebeck, Germany.
BMC Neurosci. 2008 Sep 19;9:89. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-9-89.
The generation of saccades is influenced by the level of "preparatory set activity" in cortical oculomotor areas. This preparatory activity can be examined using the gap-paradigm in which a temporal gap is introduced between the disappearance of a central fixation target and the appearance of an eccentric target.
Ten healthy subjects made horizontal pro- or antisaccades in response to lateralized cues after a gap period of 200 ms. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), frontal eye field (FEF), or supplementary eye field (SEF) of the right hemisphere 100 or 200 ms after the disappearance of the fixation point. Saccade latencies were measured to probe the disruptive effect of TMS on saccade preparation. In six individuals, we gave realistic sham TMS during the gap period to mimic auditory and somatosensory stimulation without stimulating the cortex.
TMS to DLPFC, FEF, or SEF increased the latencies of contraversive pro- and antisaccades. This TMS-induced delay of saccade initiation was particularly evident in conditions with a relatively high level of preparatory set activity: The increase in saccade latency was more pronounced at the end of the gap period and when participants prepared for prosaccades rather than antisaccades. Although the "lesion effect" of TMS was stronger with prefrontal TMS, TMS to FEF or SEF also interfered with the initiation of saccades. The delay in saccade onset induced by real TMS was not caused by non-specific effects because sham stimulation shortened the latencies of contra- and ipsiversive anti-saccades, presumably due to intersensory facilitation.
Our results are compatible with the view that the "preparatory set" for contraversive saccades is represented in a distributed cortical network, including the contralateral DLPFC, FEF and SEF.
扫视的产生受皮质眼球运动区域“准备性集合活动”水平的影响。这种准备性活动可通过间隙范式进行检测,即在中央注视目标消失与偏心目标出现之间引入一个时间间隙。
10名健康受试者在200毫秒的间隙期后,根据侧向提示做出水平正扫视或反扫视。在注视点消失后100或200毫秒,对右半球的背外侧前额叶皮质(DLPFC)、额叶眼区(FEF)或辅助眼区(SEF)施加单脉冲经颅磁刺激(TMS)。测量扫视潜伏期以探究TMS对扫视准备的干扰作用。在6名受试者中,我们在间隙期给予逼真的伪TMS,以模拟听觉和体感刺激而不刺激皮质。
对DLPFC、FEF或SEF施加TMS会增加对侧正扫视和反扫视的潜伏期。这种TMS诱导的扫视起始延迟在准备性集合活动水平相对较高的情况下尤为明显:扫视潜伏期的增加在间隙期结束时以及参与者准备正扫视而非反扫视时更为显著。尽管前额叶TMS的TMS“损伤效应”更强,但对FEF或SEF施加TMS也会干扰扫视的起始。真实TMS诱导的扫视起始延迟并非由非特异性效应引起,因为伪刺激缩短了对侧和同侧反扫视的潜伏期,这可能是由于感觉间促进作用。
我们的结果与以下观点一致,即对侧扫视的“准备性集合”由包括对侧DLPFC、FEF和SEF在内的分布式皮质网络表征。