Burman D D, Bruce C J
Section of Neurobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8001, USA.
J Neurophysiol. 1997 May;77(5):2252-67. doi: 10.1152/jn.1997.77.5.2252.
Patients with frontal lobe damage have difficulty suppressing reflexive saccades to salient visual stimuli, indicating that frontal lobe neocortex helps to suppress saccades as well as to produce them. In the present study, a role for the frontal eye field (FEF) in suppressing saccades was demonstrated in macaque monkeys by application of intracortical microstimulation during the performance of a visually guided saccade task, a memory prosaccade task, and a memory antisaccade task. A train of low-intensity (20-50 microA) electrical pulses was applied simultaneously with the disappearance of a central fixation target, which was always the cue to initiate a saccade. Trials with and without stimulation were compared, and significantly longer saccade latencies on stimulation trials were considered evidence of suppression. Low-intensity stimulation suppressed task-related saccades at 30 of 77 sites tested. In many cases saccades were suppressed throughout the microstimulation period (usually 450 ms) and then executed shortly after the train ended. Memory-guided saccades were most dramatically suppressed and were often rendered hypometric, whereas visually guided saccades were less severely suppressed by stimulation. At 18 FEF sites, the suppression of saccades was the only observable effect of electrical stimulation. Contraversive saccades were usually more strongly suppressed than ipsiversive ones, and cells recorded at such purely suppressive sites commonly had either foveal receptive fields or postsaccadic responses. At 12 other FEF sites at which saccadic eye movements were elicited at low thresholds, task-related saccades whose vectors differed from that of the electrically elicited saccade were suppressed by electrical stimulation. Such suppression at saccade sites was observed even with currents below the threshold for eliciting saccades. Pure suppression sites tended to be located near or in the fundus, deeper in the anterior bank of the arcuate than elicited saccade sites. Stimulation in the prefrontal association cortex anterior to FEF did not suppress saccades, nor did stimulation in premotor cortex posterior to FEF. These findings indicate that the primate FEF can help orchestrate saccadic eye movements by suppressing inappropriate saccade vectors as well as by selecting, specifying, and triggering appropriate saccades. We hypothesize that saccades could be suppressed both through local FEF interactions and through FEF projections to subcortical regions involved in maintaining fixation.
额叶受损的患者在抑制对显著视觉刺激的反射性扫视方面存在困难,这表明额叶新皮质有助于抑制扫视以及产生扫视。在本研究中,通过在执行视觉引导扫视任务、记忆前扫视任务和记忆反扫视任务期间应用皮质内微刺激,在猕猴中证明了额叶眼区(FEF)在抑制扫视方面的作用。在中央固定目标消失时同时施加一串低强度(20 - 50微安)的电脉冲,中央固定目标始终是引发扫视的线索。比较了有刺激和无刺激的试验,刺激试验中显著更长的扫视潜伏期被视为抑制的证据。在测试的77个位点中的30个位点,低强度刺激抑制了与任务相关的扫视。在许多情况下,扫视在整个微刺激期间(通常为450毫秒)被抑制,然后在刺激串结束后不久执行。记忆引导的扫视受到的抑制最为显著,并且常常变得幅度不足,而视觉引导的扫视受到刺激的抑制则较轻。在18个FEF位点,扫视的抑制是电刺激唯一可观察到的效应。对侧扫视通常比同侧扫视受到更强的抑制,在这些纯粹抑制性位点记录的细胞通常具有中央凹感受野或扫视后反应。在其他12个低阈值引发眼球扫视运动的FEF位点,其矢量与电引发扫视不同的与任务相关的扫视受到电刺激的抑制。即使电流低于引发扫视的阈值,在扫视位点也观察到这种抑制。纯粹的抑制位点倾向于位于弓状前壁深处的底部附近或内部,比引发扫视的位点更深。在FEF前方的前额叶联合皮质中的刺激不会抑制扫视,在FEF后方的运动前皮质中的刺激也不会。这些发现表明,灵长类动物的FEF可以通过抑制不适当的扫视矢量以及通过选择、指定和触发适当的扫视来帮助协调眼球扫视运动。我们假设,扫视可以通过局部FEF相互作用以及通过FEF向参与维持注视的皮质下区域的投射来被抑制。