Distributed model of control of saccades by superior colliculus and cerebellum.

Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, USA
Neural networks: the official journal of the International Neural Network Society (Impact Factor: 1.88). 11/1998; 11(7-8):1175-1190.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We investigate the role that superior colliculus (SC) and cerebellum (CBLM) might play in controlling saccadic eye movements. Even though strong experimental evidence argues for an important role for the CBLM, the most recent models of the saccadic system have relied mostly on the SC for the dynamic control of saccades. In this study, we propose that saccades are controlled by two parallel pathways, one including the SC and the other including the CBLM. In this model, both SC and CBLM provide part of the drive to the saccade. Furthermore, the CBLM receives direct feedback from the brain stem and keeps track of the residual motor error, so that it can issue appropriate commands to compensate for incorrect heading and to end the movement when the target has been foveated. We present here a distributed model that produces realistic saccades and accounts for a great deal of neurophysiological data.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Saccadic oscillations are continuous back-to-back saccades that cause excessive image motion across fovea and threaten clear vision. Acquired processes, related to immune or metabolic mechanisms, are common culprits. Saccadic oscillations are also seen in degenerative cerebellar disease or as a part of a familial syndrome of saccadic oscillations and limb tremor. Some normal individuals have innate ability to voluntarily trigger saccadic oscillations (i.e., voluntary nystagmus). Contemporary theory for the pathogenesis for saccadic oscillations has emphasized a hyperexcitable or disinhibited state of the brainstem saccadic burst neuron membrane. This review discusses etiologies and treatment of saccadic oscillations in light of a novel cell membrane-based theory.
    Expert Review of Ophthalmology 01/2014; 7(5).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Attention allows us to selectively process the vast amount of information with which we are confronted, prioritizing some aspects of information and ignoring others by focusing on a certain location or aspect of the visual scene. Selective attention is guided by two cognitive mechanisms: saliency of the image (bottom up) and endogenous mechanisms (top down). These two mechanisms interact to direct attention and plan eye movements; then, the movement profile is sent to the motor system, which must constantly update the command needed to produce the desired eye movement. A new approach is described here to study how the eye motor control could influence this selection mechanism in clinical behavior: two groups of patients (SCA2 and late onset cerebellar ataxia LOCA) with well-known problems of motor control were studied; patients performed a cognitively demanding task; the results were compared to a stochastic model based on Monte Carlo simulations and a group of healthy subjects. The analytical procedure evaluated some energy functions for understanding the process. The implemented model suggested that patients performed an optimal visual search, reducing intrinsic noise sources. Our findings theorize a strict correlation between the "optimal motor system" and the "optimal stimulus encoders."
    BioMed research international. 01/2014; 2014:162423.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Preterm infants are exposed to the visual environment earlier than fullterm infants, but whether early exposure affects later development is unclear. Our aim was to investigate whether the development of visual disengagement capacity during the first 6 months postterm was associated with cognitive and motor outcomes at school age, and whether associations differed between fullterms and low-risk preterms. Method: Seventeen fullterms and ten low-risk preterms were tested in a gaze shifting task every 4 weeks until 6 months postterm. The longitudinal data were converted into single continuous variables by fitting the data with an S-shaped curve (frequencies of looks) or an inverse model (latencies of looks). Neuropsychological test results at school age were converted into composite z scores. We then performed linear regression analyses for each functional domain at school age with the variables measuring infant visual attention as sep-arate predictors and adjusting for maternal level of education and group (fullterms versus preterms). We included an interaction term, visual attention*group, to determine whether predictive relations differed between fullterms and preterms. Results: A slower development of disengagement predicted poorer performance on atten-tion, motor skills, and handwriting, irrespective of fullterm or preterm birth. Predictive relationships differed marginally between fullterms and preterms for inhibitory attentional control (P = 0.054) and comprehensive reading (P = 0.064). Conclusion:This exploratory study yielded no indications of a clear advantage or disadvan-tage of the extra visual exposure in healthy preterm infants. We tentatively conclude that additional visual exposure does not interfere with the ongoing development of neuronal networks during this vulnerable period of brain development.
    Frontiers in Pediatrics 10/2014; 2(106):1.


Available from