Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, California.
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
J Neurophysiol. 2019 Nov 1;122(5):1981-1988. doi: 10.1152/jn.00198.2019. Epub 2019 Sep 18.
Smooth pursuit is punctuated by catch-up saccades, which are thought to automatically correct sensory errors in retinal position and velocity. Recent studies have shown that the timing of catch-up saccades is susceptible to cognitive modulation, as is the timing of fixational microsaccades. Are the timing of catchup and microsaccades thus modulated by the same mechanism? Here, we test directly whether pursuit catch-up saccades and fixational microsaccades exhibit the same temporal pattern of task-related bursts and subsidence. Observers pursued a linear array of 15 alphanumeric characters that translated across the screen and simultaneously performed a character identification task on it. At a fixed time, a cue briefly surrounded the central element to specify it as the pursuit target. After a random delay, a probe (E or 3) appeared briefly at a randomly selected character location, and observers identified it. For comparison, a fixation condition was also tested with trial parameters identical to the pursuit condition, except that the array remained stationary. We found that during both pursuit and fixation tasks, saccades paused after the cue and then rebounded as expected but also subsided in anticipation of the task. The time courses of the reactive pause, rebound, and anticipatory subsidence were similar, and idiosyncratic subject behavior was consistent across pursuit and fixation. The results provide evidence for a common mechanism of saccade control during pursuit and fixation, which is predictive as well as reactive and has an identifiable temporal signature in individual observers. During natural scene viewing, voluntary saccades reorient the fovea to different locations for high-acuity viewing. Less is known about small "microsaccades" that also occur when fixating stationary objects and "catch-up saccades" that occur during smooth pursuit of moving objects. We provide evidence that microsaccade and catch-up saccade frequencies are generally modulated by the same mechanism. Furthermore, on a finer time scale the mechanism operates differently in different observers, suggesting that neural saccade generators are individually unique.
平滑追踪会被追迹性眼跳打断,后者被认为可以自动纠正视网膜位置和速度的感觉错误。最近的研究表明,追迹性眼跳的时间可以受到认知调节,固视微跳的时间也可以受到认知调节。那么,追迹性眼跳和微跳的时间是否就是通过同一个机制来调节的呢?在这里,我们直接检验了追踪中的追迹性眼跳和固视微跳是否表现出相同的与任务相关的爆发和衰减的时间模式。被试者追踪一个线性排列的 15 个字母数字字符,这些字符在屏幕上平移,并同时对它们执行字符识别任务。在一个固定的时间点,一个提示短暂地围绕着中央元素,将其指定为追踪目标。在一个随机的延迟之后,一个探测(E 或 3)短暂地出现在一个随机选择的字符位置上,被试者识别它。为了进行比较,还测试了一个固定条件,该条件的试验参数与追踪条件完全相同,只是数组保持静止。我们发现,在追踪和固定条件下,眼跳在提示后暂停,然后如预期的那样反弹,但也在任务前衰减。反应性暂停、反弹和预期衰减的时间过程相似,个体被试者的行为在追踪和固定条件下是一致的。结果为在追踪和固定过程中,眼跳控制存在一个共同机制提供了证据,该机制既是预测性的,也是反应性的,并且在个体被试者中具有可识别的时间特征。在自然场景观看中,自愿性眼跳将中央凹重新定向到不同的位置,以实现高清晰度观看。关于当注视静止物体时发生的小“微跳”和在平滑追踪移动物体时发生的“追迹性眼跳”,人们了解得较少。我们提供的证据表明,微跳和追迹性眼跳的频率通常受到相同的机制调节。此外,在更精细的时间尺度上,不同的被试者的机制运作方式不同,这表明神经眼跳发生器是独一无二的。