Alteration of the timing of self-initiated but not reactive saccades by electrical stimulation in the supplementary eye field
Version of Record online: 30 JUL 2012
© 2012 The Authors. European Journal of Neuroscience © 2012 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
European Journal of Neuroscience
Volume 36, Issue 9, pages 3258–3268, November 2012
How to Cite
Kunimatsu, J. and Tanaka, M. (2012), Alteration of the timing of self-initiated but not reactive saccades by electrical stimulation in the supplementary eye field. European Journal of Neuroscience, 36: 3258–3268. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08242.x
- Issue online: 5 NOV 2012
- Version of Record online: 30 JUL 2012
- Received 16 March 2012, revised 25 June 2012, accepted 1 July 2012
Fig. S1. Time courses of the population of LFPs recorded from the SEF during self-timed task (red trace) and conventional task (blue trace). (A) The traces are the means of LFPs for 24 sites and are aligned on saccades (vertical line). Dashed horizontal line indicates the mean of local field potentials during the baseline period (800–400 ms prior to saccades). Dashed traces indicate plus and minus SD. (B) Same data as in A but are aligned on the cue offset (vertical line). Note that the time courses of neural activity during the initial 1000 ms were very similar between the tasks. Horizontal bars in different colors indicate the ranges of mean saccade latencies for the corresponding tasks. Note that preparatory activity had already started as stimulation current was delivered in the stimulation experiments (500–900 ms following the cue offset for the conventional task, 600 ms for the self-timed task).
Fig. S2. Quantitative summary of the stimulation effects on saccade latency in all SEF (n = 108) and FEFsupp (n = 38) sites. Means and 95% confidence intervals of the changes in median latencies for 6 different conditions. Conventions are the same as Fig. 5D. Note that the effect of SEF stimulation during saccade preparation was greater for self-timed task than conventional task in both directions.
Fig. S3. Comparison of the stimulation effects on saccade latency in the saccade-evoking FEF (FEFsac) sites. (A) Stimulation effects at an example FEFsac site. For each condition, the cumulative relative frequencies of saccade latency is compared between trials with (coloured symbols) and without (black symbols) electrical stimulation. Conventions are the same as Fig. 4. (B) Quantitative summary of the stimulation effects. Means and 95% confidence intervals of the changes in median latencies for 6 different conditions. Saccade latency was not altered by stimulation in any condition (Scheffe, p < 0.01).
As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer-reviewed and may be re-organized for online delivery, but are not copy-edited or typeset by Wiley-Blackwell. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors.
|ejn8242_sm_FigS1.eps||3545K||Supporting info item|
|ejn8242_sm_FigS2.eps||1765K||Supporting info item|
|ejn8242_sm_FigS3.eps||2571K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.