The onset latencies of single-unit responses evoked by flashing visual stimuli were measured in the parvocellular (P) and magnocellular (M) layers of the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (LGNd) and in cortical visual areas V1, V2, V3, V4, middle temporal area (MT), medial superior temporal area (MST), and in the frontal eye field (FEF) in individual anesthetized monkeys. Identical procedures were carried out to assess latencies in each area, often in the same monkey, thereby permitting direct comparisons of timing across areas. This study presents the visual flash-evoked latencies for cells in areas where such data are common (V1 and V2), and are therefore a good standard, and also in areas where such data are sparse (LGNd M and P layers, MT, V4) or entirely lacking (V3, MST, and FEF in anesthetized preparation). Visual-evoked onset latencies were, on average, 17 ms shorter in the LGNd M layers than in the LGNd P layers. Visual responses occurred in V1 before any other cortical area. The next wave of activation occurred concurrently in areas V3, MT, MST, and FEF. Visual response latencies in areas V2 and V4 were progressively later and more broadly distributed. These differences in the time course of activation across the dorsal and ventral streams provide important temporal constraints on theories of visual processing.

1. The latency between the appearance of a popout search display and the eye movement to the oddball target of the display varies from trial to trial in both humans and monkeys. The source of the delay and variability of reaction time is unknown but has been attributed to as yet poorly defined decision processes. 2. We recorded neural activity in the frontal eye field (FEF), an area regarded as playing a central role in producing purposeful eye movements, of monkeys (Macaca mulatta) performing a popout visual search task. Eighty-four neurons with visually evoked activity were analyzed. Twelve of these neurons had a phasic response associated with the presentation of the visual stimulus. The remaining neurons had more tonic responses that persisted through the saccade. Many of the neurons with more tonic responses resembled visuomovement cells in that they had activity that increased before a saccade into their response field. 3. The visual response latencies of FEF neurons were determined with the use of a Poisson spike train analysis. The mean visual latency was 67 ms (minimum = 35 ms, maximum = 138 ms). The visual response latencies to the target presented alone, to the target presented with distractors, or to the distractors did not differ significantly. 4. The initial visual activation of FEF neurons does not discriminate the target from the distractors of a popout visual search stimulus array, but the activity evolves to a state that discriminates whether the target of the search display is within the receptive field. We tested the hypothesis that the source of variability of saccade latency is the time taken by neurons involved in saccade programming to select the target for the gaze shift. 5. With the use of an analysis adapted from signal detection theory, we determined when the activity of single FEF neurons can reliably indicate whether the target or distractors are present within their response fields. The time of target discrimination partitions the reaction time into a perceptual stage in which target discrimination takes place, and a motor stage in which saccade programming and generation take place. The time of target discrimination occurred most often between 120 and 150 ms after stimulus presentation. 6. We analyzed the time course of target discrimination in the activity of single cells after separating trials into short, medium, and long saccade latency groups. Saccade latency was not correlated with the duration of the perceptual stage but was correlated with the duration of the motor stage. This result is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the time taken for target discrimination, as indexed by FEF neurons, accounts for the wide variability in the time of movement initiation. 7. We conclude that the variability observed in saccade latencies during a simple visual search task is largely due to postperceptual motor processing following target discrimination. Signatures of both perceptual and postperceptual processing are evident in FEF. Procrastination in the output stage may prevent stereot...

The influential "premotor theory of attention" proposes that developing oculomotor commands mediate covert visual spatial attention. A likely source of this attentional bias is the frontal eye field (FEF), an area of the frontal cortex involved in converting visual information into saccade commands. We investigated the link between FEF activity and covert spatial attention by recording from FEF visual and saccade-related neurons in monkeys performing covert visual search tasks without eye movements. Here we show that the source of attention signals in the FEF is enhanced activity of visually responsive neurons. At the time attention is allocated to the visual search target, nonvisually responsive saccade-related movement neurons are inhibited. Therefore, in the FEF, spatial attention signals are independent of explicit saccade command signals. We propose that spatially selective activity in FEF visually responsive neurons corresponds to the mental spotlight of attention via modulation of ongoing visual processing.

We review neural correlates of perceptual and motor decisions, examining whether the time they occupy explains the duration and variability of behavioral reaction times. The location of a salient target is identified through a spatiotemporal evolution of visually evoked activation throughout the visual system. Selection of the target leads to stochastic growth of movement-related activity toward a fixed threshold to generate the gaze shift. For a given image, the neural concomitants of perceptual processing occupy a relatively constant interval so that stochastic variability in response generation introduces additional variability in reaction times.

No abstract