Electrical microstimulation and unit recording were performed in dorsomedial frontal cortex of four alert monkeys to identify an oculomotor area whose existence had been postulated rostral to the supplementary motor area. Contraversive saccades were evoked from 129 sites by stimulation. Threshold currents were lower than 20 microA in half the tests. Response latencies were usually longer than 50 ms (minimum: 30 ms). Eye movements were occasionally accompanied by blinks, ear, or neck movements. The cortical area yielding these movements was at the superior edge of the frontal lobe just rostral to the region from which limb movements could be elicited. Depending on the site of stimulation, saccades varied between two extremes: from having rather uniform direction and size, to converging toward a goal defined in space. The transition between these extremes was gradual with no evidence that these two types were fundamentally different. From surface to depth of cortex, direction and amplitude of evoked saccades were similar or changed progressively. No clear systematization was found depending on location along rostrocaudal or mediolateral axes of the cortex. The dorsomedial oculomotor area mapped was approximately 7 mm long and 6 mm wide. Combined eye and head movements were elicited from one of ten sites stimulated when the head was unrestrained. In the other nine cases, saccades were not accompanied by head rotation, even when higher currents or longer stimulus trains were applied. Presaccadic unit activity was recorded from 62 cells. Each of these cells had a preferred direction that corresponded to the direction of the movement evoked by local microstimulation. Presaccadic activity occurred with self-initiated as well as visually triggered saccades. It often led self-initiated saccades by more than 300 ms. Recordings made with the head free showed that the firing could not be interpreted as due to attempted head movements. Many dorsomedial cortical neurons responded to photic stimuli, either phasically or tonically. Sustained responses (activation or inhibition) were observed during target fixation. Twenty-one presaccadic units showed tonic changes of activity with fixation. Justification is given for considering the cortical area studied as a supplementary eye field. It shares many common properties with the arcuate frontal eye field. Differences noted in this study include: longer latency of response to electrical stimulation, possibility to evoke saccades converging apparently toward a goal, and long-lead unit activity with spontaneous saccades.

The voluntary control of gaze implies the ability to make saccadic eye movements specified by abstract instructions, as well as the ability to repress unwanted orientating to sudden stimuli. Both of these abilities are challenged in the antisaccade task, because it requires subjects to look at an unmarked location opposite to a flashed stimulus, without glancing at it. Performance on this task depends on the frontal/prefrontal cortex and related structures, but the neuronal operations underlying antisaccades are not understood. It is not known, for example, how excited visual neurons that normally trigger a saccade to a target (a prosaccade) can activate oculomotor neurons directing gaze in the opposite direction. Visual neurons might, perhaps, alter their receptive fields depending on whether they receive a pro- or antisaccade instruction. If the receptive field is not altered, the antisaccade goal must be computed and imposed from the top down to the appropriate oculomotor neurons. Here we show, using recordings from the supplementary eye field (a frontal cortex oculomotor centre) in monkeys, that visual and movement neurons retain the same spatial selectivity across randomly mixed pro- and antisaccade trials. However, these neurons consistently fire more before antisaccades than prosaccades with the same trajectories, suggesting a mechanism through which voluntary antisaccade commands can override reflexive glances.

The oculomotor system has long been thought to rely on an accurate representation of eye displacement or position in a successful attempt to reconcile a stationary target's retinal instability (caused by motion of the eyes) with its corresponding spatial invariance. This is in stark contrast to perceptual localization, which has been shown to rely on a sluggish representation of eye displacement, achieving only partial compensation for the retinal displacement caused by saccadic eye movements. Recent studies, however, have begun to case doubt on the belief that the oculomotor system possess a signal of eye displacement superior to that of the perceptual system. To verify this, five humans and one monkey (Macaca nemestrina) served as subjects in this study of oculomotor localization abilities. Subjects were instructed to make eye movements, as accurately as possible, to the locations of three successive visual stimuli. Presentation of the third stimulus (2-ms duration) was timed so that it fell before, during, or after the subject's saccade from the first stimulus to the second. Localization errors in each subject (human and nonhuman) were consistent with the hypothesis that the oculomotor system has access to only a damped representation of eye displacement--a representation similar to that found in perceptual localization studies.

Reviews on the visual system generally praise its amazing performance. Here we deal with its biggest weakness: sluggishness. Inherent delays lead to mislocalization when things move or, more generally, when things change. Errors in time translate into spatial errors when we pursue a moving object, when we try to localize a target that appears just before a gaze shift, or when we compare the position of a flashed target with the instantaneous position of a continuously moving one (or one that appears to be moving even though no change occurs in the retinal image). Studying such diverse errors might rekindle our thinking about how the brain copes with real-time changes in the world.

WGA-HRP was used to examine projections to the brainstem from the supplementary eye field (SEF). The SEF was defined electrophysiologically in awake, behaving monkeys and connections were compared to those of the arcuate frontal eye field (FEF), area 6DC, and primary motor cortex. The SEF was found to have either direct or indirect connections with almost every known pre- and paraoculomotor structure of the brainstem. The SEF was found to project bilaterally to layers I and IV of a tangentially widespread region of the superior colliculus. Terminal label was evident in the pretectal olivary nucleus, nucleus of the optic tract, nucleus raphe interpositus (omnipause region), nucleus prepositus hypoglossi, the perioculomotor cap of the central gray, dorsal central gray, nucleus reticularis tegmenti pontis, nucleus reticularis pontis oralis, and to multiple nuclei of the basis pontis (most densely to the dorsomedial nucleus). Bilateral projections were found in the parvicellular red nucleus. Reciprocal connections were present in the nucleus limitans, the mesencephalic reticular formation, locus coeruleus, and the serotonergic nuclei of the raphe complex (dorsalis and central superior). Overall patterns of connectivity were similar to those of the FEF and markedly different from those of the contiguous dorsocaudal area 6 or primary motor cortex. It was concluded that observed patterns of SEF-brainstem connectivity further justifies viewing this region as a distinct eye field that is likely to serve preparatory and trigger functions in the generation of saccadic eye movements.