Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Systems/Circuits

A Distinct Contribution of the Frontal Eye Field to the Visual Representation of Saccadic Targets

Behrad Noudoost, Kelsey L. Clark and Tirin Moore
Journal of Neuroscience 5 March 2014, 34 (10) 3687-3698; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3824-13.2014
Behrad Noudoost
1Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kelsey L. Clark
1Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tirin Moore
1Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, and
2Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford, California 94305
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Effects of FEF inactivation on visually guided saccades. A, Landing points of saccades in the toward and away conditions before (green) and after FEF inactivation (blue) for a sample experiment. Note that the saccade target is an oriented bar in the toward condition and a circular target in the away conditions. Small bar plots show the mean ± SE of saccade scatter for each condition. B, C, Distributions of saccade latencies and durations before and after inactivation for the sample experiment in A. The arrows indicate the median of each distribution. D–F, Mean and SEM of changes in latency, duration and scatter of saccades after FEF inactivation in toward and away conditions across 19 experimental sessions.*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; n.s. = p > 0.05.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Effects of FEF inactivation on memory-guided saccades. A, In the memory-guided saccade task, the monkey is required to remember the location of a cue (black circle) across a variable delay and to make a saccade to the remembered cue location after the go signal (fixation spot offset). B, Performance of a monkey in a sample experiment for five different locations before and after FEF inactivation. The y-axis in each plot is the delay duration, adjusted separately at each location via a staircase procedure. In this procedure, a correct trial results in an increase in the delay duration for the next trial at that location, whereas an incorrect response reduces the delay for the next trial. Green and blue lines illustrate the performance before and after FEF inactivation, respectively. Steep staircase functions indicate an ability to perform the task at increasingly long delays. In contrast, flat or declining functions indicate relatively poor ability, or complete inability (e.g., blue in middle plot), to remember cue location for even very short delays. The black polar plot illustrates the percentage drop in delay due to inactivation measured after an equal number of trials in each location (dashed line in each plot). C, Distribution of percentage drop in delay for 24 inactivation experiments for cue locations inside the scotoma (top) and location 90° (theta) away from that location (outside scotoma, bottom).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Simultaneous inactivation of the FEF and recordings from area V4 neurons during a visually guided saccade task. A, Visually guided, delayed saccade task in which monkeys made delayed saccades to visual stimuli (targets) appearing within the RF of V4 neurons under study (saccade toward) or to a distant non-RF target (saccade away). Event plots to the right show the sequence of trial events. FP, fixation point. B, A microinjectrode was used to elicit saccades (red traces) with microstimulation and record from FEF neurons before and after local infusion of muscimol. Recordings were made from V4 neurons with RFs within the part of space affected by the FEF inactivation.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Inactivation of FEF activity. A, Visual and saccade related activity recorded at an FEF site before (left) and after (right) local infusion of 0.5 μl of muscimol. Control and postinfusion mean responses are aligned first to stimulus onset (left) and then to saccadic onset (right) at the end of the behavioral trial. Note the absence of orientation selectivity but the clear presence of a presaccadic enhancement that is eliminated following the infusion of 0.5 μl of muscimol. B, Mean normalized firing rate (FR) of FEF neurons to visual stimuli before infusion (black), and >30 min after the muscimol infusion (blue). Each response is aligned to visual stimulus onset (above traces). Arrows indicate eye movements into or away from the FEF RF for the corresponding plot. C, Presaccadic responses for samples of FEF neurons for saccades made to targets in their RFs. Responses are aligned to saccadic onset. D, Presaccadic responses for saccades made to targets outside of the FEF RFs. Gray bars on bottom denote the presaccadic time window used in the analysis.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Effects of FEF inactivation on the responses of an exemplar V4 neuron. A, Visual responses of one V4 neuron to its preferred stimulus before (black) and after FEF inactivation (orange). Responses are shown aligned to the onset of the visual stimulus (left axis), and to the onset of the saccade (right axis), for saccades toward the V4 RF only. B, Responses of the same V4 neuron to its nonpreferred stimulus before (gray) and after FEF inactivation (peach).

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Effects of FEF inactivation on presaccadic enhancement in V4. A, Recordings were made from 33 V4 neurons with RFs within the part of space affected by the FEF inactivation. Left, evoked saccade vectors of FEF sites before inactivation. Right, distribution of distances between the FEF RF and each V4 RF. B, V4 presaccadic responses for saccades made to RF stimuli (black) or to targets outside of the RF (gray) before inactivation. Arrows indicate eye movements into or away from the V4 RF for the corresponding plot. C, V4 presaccadic responses for saccades made to RF stimuli (dark red) or to targets outside of the RF (bright red) after inactivation. D, Comparison of presaccadic enhancement (AROC) for saccades made into the RF (toward) before and after FEF inactivation. Histogram on the diagonal shows the difference in enhancement. E, Comparison of presaccadic enhancement for saccades made outside the RF (away) before and after FEF inactivation.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Effects of FEF inactivation on V4 responses to preferred and nonpreferred stimuli. A, Visual responses of 27 stimulus-selective V4 neurons to preferred (black) and nonpreferred bar orientations (gray) before FEF inactivation. Responses are shown aligned to the onset of the visual stimulus (left axis), and to the onset of the saccade (right axis), for saccades toward the V4 RF only. B, Responses of the same 27 V4 neurons after FEF inactivation, for preferred (orange) and nonpreferred stimuli (peach). C, Selectivity of V4 visual responses, measured as the area under an ROC curve, before FEF inactivation (black) and after FEF inactivation (orange); responses are shown aligned to stimulus onset (left axis) and saccade initiation (right axis). ROC area calculated in a sliding 50 ms window.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Effects of FEF inactivation on V4 selectivity indices and tuning. A, Comparison of presaccadic stimulus selectivity indexes for saccades made into the RF (toward) before and after FEF inactivation. Histogram on the diagonal shows the difference in selectivity index. B, Comparison of presaccadic stimulus selectivity indexes for saccades made outside the RF (away) before and after FEF inactivation. C, Effect of inactivation on the orientation tuning of V4 neurons. The normalized responses of 8 V4 neurons to four different orientations (relative to the preferred) are shown (dark lines) before (green) and after inactivation (blue). Data from −90° is duplicated at +90° for visualization purposes (light lines). D, FEF inactivation reduces orientation discriminability (AROC) during the presaccadic period. Bar plot shows the mean discriminability for all six pairwise comparisons of responses to the 4 orientations before (green) and after FEF inactivation (blue). The four stimulus orientations were rank ordered from first to fourth optimal based on the evoked response.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    The relationship between presaccadic enhancement and the stimulus selectivity index of V4 neurons. A, Correlation between presaccadic changes in average response and stimulus selectivity for an example V4 neuron before (black) and after (salmon) inactivation. Each point represents changes in average response (preferred and nonpreferred) and stimulus selectivity index (preferred vs nonpreferred) computed for a randomly selected subset of trials. Arrows indicate the marginal means. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) computed for data before and after inactivation are shown. B, Distributions of correlation coefficients for all 27 V4 neurons recorded before (black) and after FEF inactivation (salmon), calculated using the subsampling method illustrated in A. The distribution of correlation coefficients for a population of 61 V4 neurons from a previous study (Moore and Chang, 2009; white) is also shown. C, Distributions of correlation coefficients for the same 27 V4 neurons recorded before (black) and after FEF inactivation (salmon), calculated using the trial-pairing method.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Effect of FEF inactivation on surround suppression of V4 responses. A, Surround suppression paradigm: the same as the visually guided saccade paradigm previously described, except that a small surround stimulus appeared for 13 ms at a random location >6 dva from the receptive field stimulus at a random time 200–800 ms after the onset of the receptive field stimulus; timing was the same for toward and away conditions, illustrated here only for the toward condition. Gray shading indicates the time during which the surround stimulus could appear. B, Surround stimulus-aligned response of a population of 24 V4 neurons to preferred stimuli before (black) and after FEF inactivation (blue). C, Surround stimulus-aligned response of the same population of V4 neurons to nonpreferred stimuli before (black) and after FEF inactivation (blue). D, Distributions of the SSIs for preferred stimuli (green) and nonpreferred stimuli (orange) before inactivation. E, Distributions of the change in the SSIs for preferred and nonpreferred stimuli following FEF inactivation.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 34 (10)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 34, Issue 10
5 Mar 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Distinct Contribution of the Frontal Eye Field to the Visual Representation of Saccadic Targets
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
A Distinct Contribution of the Frontal Eye Field to the Visual Representation of Saccadic Targets
Behrad Noudoost, Kelsey L. Clark, Tirin Moore
Journal of Neuroscience 5 March 2014, 34 (10) 3687-3698; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3824-13.2014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
A Distinct Contribution of the Frontal Eye Field to the Visual Representation of Saccadic Targets
Behrad Noudoost, Kelsey L. Clark, Tirin Moore
Journal of Neuroscience 5 March 2014, 34 (10) 3687-3698; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3824-13.2014
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • extrastriate cortex
  • eye movements
  • motor command
  • prefrontal cortex
  • top-down control
  • visual attention

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Systems/Circuits

  • Enhancement of hippocampal-thalamocortical temporal coordination during slow-frequency long-duration anterior thalamic spindles
  • Oscillatory population-level activity of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons is inscribed in sleep structure
  • Crossed corticostriatal projections in the macaque brain
Show more Systems/Circuits
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.