Saccadic Suppression and Adaptation

MacAskill, Michael R.; Muir, S. R.; Anderson, Tim

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3054-8_13

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the five adaptation blocks, the stimulus was always displaced centripetally by 12.5% of its initial amplitude when the initial (primary) saccade reached a 30 s À1 threshold. This displacement was always completed before the eyes completed the saccade to the next position [38]. The displaced target then remained in place for 1000-2000 ms to allow the subject to re-fixate.…”

Section: Adaptation Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of mild closed head injury on involuntary saccadic adaptation: Evidence for the preservation of implicit motor learning

Heitger¹,

MacAskill²,

Jones³

et al. 2005

Brain Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No differences in adaptation were found between the CHI group and the controls (F(1, 29) = 0.51, p = 0.48). This finding indicates that mild CHI does not impair implicit reflexive saccade adaptation and suggests that cerebellar function and functions of deeper brain structures such as the thalamus, superior colliculus and the basal ganglia may be largely preserved following mild CHI. The current results support the notion that the profile of oculomotor function after mild CHI reflects a centripetal gradient of impairment and relates closely to the functional integrity of the injured brain.

show abstract

Section: Adaptation Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of mild closed head injury on involuntary saccadic adaptation: Evidence for the preservation of implicit motor learning

Heitger¹,

MacAskill²,

Jones³

et al. 2005

Brain Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be seen in figure 6, where the hit rate remains at low levels when the displacement ratio is less than or equal to 12.5%, but then rises rapidly until it begins to saturate near 30%. This shows that the oft-quoted threshold value of the displacement ratio of 30% (derived from the large-image free-saccade study of Bridgeman et al) is clearly not always appropriate for studies with saccades that follow a small target (see also MacAskill et al 1999;Currie et al 2000). (The high threshold found by Bridgeman et al may also be due to that study having measured all possible relative latencies of target and saccade, including displacements that occurred before a saccade was initiated.…”

Section: Influence Of Background Displacement and Contrastmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Displacements which are small relative to the size of the saccade are least likely to be detected. Estimates of the displacementratio threshold range from 10% to 30% (Mack 1970;Bridgeman et al 1975;Bridgeman 1981;Matin 1990, 1997;McConkie and Currie 1996;MacAskill et al 1999), depending on the relative timing of the saccade and the displacement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Saccadic Suppression of Displacement: Effects of Illumination and Background Manipulation

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to other functions which are suppressed during saccades, saccadic suppression of displacement (SSD--a decrease in sensitivity to visual displacements during saccades) has often been considered to be due to efferent processes rather than to visual masking. The aim of this study was to explicitly assess the importance of visual conditions in SSD. In two experiments, a small computer-generated target made random horizontal jumps. An infrared eye tracker was used to detect the saccade toward the new position, triggering a smaller centripetal displacement of the target. Subjects reported awareness of these intrasaccadic displacements by pressing a key. In the first experiment, the task was performed in both a well-lit environment and in darkness. In the second experiment these conditions were replicated and additional factors such as the contrast of the background and the effect of moving the target spot alone or the target plus the entire background were investigated. Unlike other forms of saccadic suppression, SSD was stronger in the dark, although subjects also had a greater bias to report detections in that condition. Other background manipulations had no effect. The effect of ambient lighting on SSD is small and subtle. Effects of other background manipulations may be overridden by the focusing of attention on a small moving target.

show abstract

“…Due to intrasaccadic visual suppression, the subject will not usually see the image move if the displacement is <12% of the primary step [2]. The subject may be asked to provide feedback of any detected displacement by pressing a key on a keyboard.…”

Section: A Saccadic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%