When primates maintain their gaze directed toward a visual target (visual fixation), their eyes display a combination of miniature fast and slow movements. An involvement of the cerebellum in visual fixation is indicated by the severe gaze instabilities observed in patients suffering from cerebellar lesions. Recent studies in non-human primates have identified a cerebellar structure, the fastigial oculomotor region (FOR), as a major cerebellar output nucleus with projections toward oculomotor regions in the brain stem. Unilateral inactivation of the FOR leads to dysmetric visually guided saccades and to an offset in gaze direction when the animal fixates a visual target. However, the nature of this fixation offset is not fully understood. In the present work, we analyze the inactivation-induced effects on fixation. A novel technique is adopted to describe the generation of saccades when a target is being fixated (fixational saccades). We show that the offset is the result of a combination of impaired saccade accuracy and an altered encoding of the foveal target position. Because they are independent, we propose that these two impairments are mediated by the different projections of the FOR to the brain stem, in particular to the deep superior colliculus and the pontomedullary reticular formation. Our study demonstrates that the oculomotor cerebellum, through the activity in the FOR, regulates both the amplitude of fixational saccades and the position toward which the eyes must be directed, suggesting an involvement in the acquisition of visual information from the fovea.

The location of motor-related activity in the deeper layers of the superior colliculus (SC) is thought to generate a desired displacement command specifying the amplitude and direction of saccadic eye movements. However, the amplitude of saccadic eye movements made to visual targets can be systematically altered by surreptitiously moving the target location after the saccade has been initiated. Depending on whether the target is moved closer to or further from the fixation location, adaptation of saccade amplitude results in movements that are either smaller or larger than control movements. It remains an open question whether the SC specifies the desired movement to the original target location or whether SC activity specifies the vector of the amplitude-altered movement that is observed as adaptation progresses. We investigated this question by recording the activity of saccade-related burst neurons in the SC of head-restrained rhesus monkeys during both backward and forward saccadic adaptation. During adaptation in each direction, we find no evidence that is consistent with a change in the locus of SC activity despite changes in saccade amplitude; the location of SC motor-related activity does not appear to be remapped during either forward or backward saccadic adaptation. These data are inconsistent with hypotheses that propose a key role for the SC in mediating the changes in saccade amplitude observed during adaptation.

An object moving in the visual field triggers a saccade that brings its image onto the fovea. It is followed by a combination of slow eye movements and catch-up saccades that try to keep the target image on the fovea as long as possible. The accuracy of this ability to track the "here-and-now" location of a visual target contrasts with the spatiotemporally distributed nature of its encoding in the brain. We show in six experimentally naive monkeys how this performance is acquired and gradually evolves during successive daily sessions. During the early exposure, the tracking is mostly saltatory, made of relatively large saccades separated by low eye velocity episodes, demonstrating that accurate (here and now) pursuit is not spontaneous and that gaze direction lags behind its location most of the time. Over the sessions, while the pursuit velocity is enhanced, the gaze is more frequently directed toward the current target location as a consequence of a 25% reduction in the number of catch-up saccades and a 37% reduction in size (for the first saccade). This smoothing is observed at several scales: during the course of single trials, across the set of trials within a session, and over successive sessions. We explain the neurophysiological processes responsible for this combined evolution of saccades and pursuit in the absence of stringent training constraints. More generally, our study shows that the oculomotor system can be used to discover the neural mechanisms underlying the ability to synchronize a motor effector with a dynamic external event.

It is known that expectation of reward speeds up saccades. Past studies have also shown the presence of a saccadic velocity bias in the orbit, resulting from a biomechanical regulation over varying eccentricities. Nevertheless, whether and how reward expectation interacts with the biomechanical regulation of saccadic velocities over varying eccentricities remains unknown. We addressed this question by conducting a visually guided double-step saccade task. The role of reward expectation was tested in monkeys performing two consecutive horizontal saccades, one associated with reward prospect and the other not. To adequately assess saccadic velocity and avoid adaptation, we systematically varied initial eye positions, saccadic directions and amplitudes. Our results confirmed the existence of a velocity bias in the orbit, i.e., saccadic peak velocity decreased linearly as the initial eye position deviated in the direction of the saccade. The slope of this bias increased as saccadic amplitudes increased. Nevertheless, reward prospect facilitated velocity to a greater extent for saccades away from than for saccades toward the orbital centre, rendering an overall reduction in the velocity bias. The rate (slope) and magnitude (intercept) of reward modulation over this velocity bias were linearly correlated with amplitudes, similar to the amplitude-modulated velocity bias without reward prospect, which presumably resulted from a biomechanical regulation. Small-amplitude (≤ 5°) saccades received little modulation. These findings together suggest that reward expectation modulated saccadic velocity not as an additive signal but as a facilitating mechanism that interacted with the biomechanical regulation.