Increased preparation time reduces, but does not abolish, action history bias of saccadic eye movements

Abstract

The characteristics of movements are strongly history-dependent. Marinovic et al. (Marinovic W, Poh E, de Rugy A, Carroll TJ. eLife 6: e26713, 2017) showed that past experience influences the execution of limb movements through a combination of temporally stable processes that are strictly use dependent and dynamically evolving and context-dependent processes that reflect prediction of future actions. Here we tested the basis of history-dependent biases for multiple spatiotemporal features of saccadic eye movements under two preparation time conditions (long and short). Twenty people performed saccades to visual targets. To prompt context-specific expectations of most likely target locations, 1 of 12 potential target locations was specified on ~85% of the trials and each remaining target was presented on ~1% trials. In long preparation trials participants were shown the location of the next target 1 s before its presentation onset, whereas in short preparation trials each target was first specified as the cue to move. Saccade reaction times and direction were biased by recent saccade history but according to distinct spatial tuning profiles. Biases were purely expectation related for saccadic reaction times, which increased linearly as the distance from the repeated target location increased when preparation time was short but were similar to all targets when preparation time was long. By contrast, the directions of saccades were biased toward the repeated target in both preparation time conditions, although to a lesser extent when the target location was precued (long preparation). The results suggest that saccade history affects saccade dynamics via both use- and expectation-dependent mechanisms and that movement history has dissociable effects on reaction time and saccadic direction. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The characteristics of our movements are influenced not only by concurrent sensory inputs but also by how we have moved in the past. For limb movements, history effects involve both use-dependent processes due strictly to movement repetition and processes that reflect prediction of future actions. Here we show that saccade history also affects saccade dynamics via use- and expectation-dependent mechanisms but that movement history has dissociable effects on saccade reaction time and direction.

Dissociable use-dependent processes for volitional goal-directed reaching

“…As seen in both the group (figure 1 c ) and individual data (electronic supplementary material, figure S5, top), the data for all probe distances were bimodal (likelihood ratio test of bimodal versus unimodal, probe distance 30°, 60°, 90°: all p<0.001; probe distance 0° is unimodal: p=0.08). There was one peak at the probe location and a second peak near the frequent target location, similar to the results reported in a UDL study involving eye movements [24]. In addition, the distributions included a wide range of intermediate heading angles.…”

The Consistency of Prior Movements Shapes Locomotor Use-Dependent Learning

“…Use-dependent learning has been reported across reaching (Diedrichsen et al, 2010), singlejoint thumb (Classen et al, 1998;Mawase et al, 2017) and wrist (Marinovic et al, 2017;Selvanayagam et al, 2016) movements, and saccades (Reuter et al, 2019). However, surprisingly little attention has been paid to use-dependent learning during locomotion, a naturally repetitive, cyclical form of movement.…”

“…The dichotomy between action selection and action execution has been an active area of investigation within the sensorimotor learning literature of the past decade (Kim et al, 2021;McDougle et al, 2016;Taylor and Ivry, 2012). However, it is only more recently that a similar split has been observed in studies of use-dependent learning, with demonstrations that recent movement history can quickly elicit large action selection biases while action execution biases take longer to develop and are much smaller (Marinovic et al, 2017;Reuter et al, 2019). The current study suggests visually-guided walking requires the parallel operation of a flexible action selection process and a slow, rigid use-dependent learning one.…”

Motor Output Matters: Evidence of a Continuous Relationship Between Stop/No-go P300 Amplitude and Response Force on Failed Inhibitions at the Trial-Level

“…hitting a fast pitch). To deal with these high temporal demands humans rely on advanced motor planning (de Rugy, Loeb, & Carroll, 2012;Gray, 2002;Lacquaniti & Maioli, 1989;Marinovic, Tresilian, Chapple, Riek, & Carroll, 2017;Reuter, Marinovic, Welsh, & Carroll, 2019;Senot, Zago, Lacquaniti, & McIntyre, 2005). Although this strategy increases the chances of success when our predictions are correct, it becomes challenging to change or inhibit these highly prepared actions when they become undesirable (e.g.…”