SUPPLEMENTARY EYE FIELD CONTRASTED WITH THE FRONTAL EYE FIELD DURING ACQUISITION OF CONDITIONAL OCULOMOTOR ASSOCIATIONS
SUPPLEMENTARY EYE FIELD CONTRASTED WITH THE FRONTAL EYE FIELD DURING ACQUISITION OF CONDITIONAL OCULOMOTOR ASSOCIATIONS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1152/jn.1995.73.3.1122
复制
发表时间：
1995-03-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
WISE, SP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
CHEN, LL;WISE, SP
1.配套论文报告说，猕猴的补充眼区（SEF）中有相当大比例的细胞显示出神经元活动的显着进化，因为受试者学习新的和任意的刺激-扫视关联。本研究的目的是比较和对比SEF和额眼场（FEF）在这种条件性眼动学习过程中的活动.在SEF和FEF中，我们观察到学习依赖性和学习选择性活动，定义为任务相关活动的显著演变，因为猴子学习了四个眼跳中的哪一个是由新刺激指示的。根据定义，除了猴子学习新的指令刺激的教学意义的变化外，学习依赖性活动也显示了熟悉刺激指示的任务相关调制，而学习选择性活动则没有。在充分测试的186个SEF神经元中，81个（44%）显示出这两类学习相关变化之一。相比之下，90个FEF神经元充分测试，只有14（16%）表现出类似的属性。差异有高度统计学意义（χ 2 = 21.1; P < 0.001）。我们还观察到持续的差异，在活动的试验与熟悉的与新的指令刺激，我们称之为学习静态效应。在某些情况下，学习静态效应与学习依赖性或学习选择性活动变化共存，但在其他情况下则不然。在前一种情况下，活动在学习过程中系统地改变，但达到了一个水平，不同于熟悉的刺激指示相同的眼跳。在后一种情况下，活动没有显着变化，因为猴子学习新的条件性眼动协会，但确实表现出显着差异，这取决于是否一个新的或熟悉的刺激指示给定的眼跳。总的来说，66 186（35%）的SEF和17 90（19%）的FEF细胞在一个或多个任务期间表现出学习静态效应。差异有统计学意义（χ 2 = 7.9; P < 0.005）。SEF和FEF细胞的特性的显着差异表明，在条件性视觉学习过程中的两个领域的功能分离。在这方面，FEF类似于初级运动皮层，而SEF类似于运动前皮层。
1. The companion paper reported that a substantial proportion of cells in the supplementary eye field (SEF) of macaque monkeys show significant evolution of neuronal activity as subjects learn new and arbitrary stimulus-saccade associations. The purpose of the present study was to compare and contrast the activity of the SEF and the frontal eye field (FEF) during such conditional oculomotor learning.2. In both SEF and FEF, we observed learning-dependent and learning-selective activity, defined as significant evolution of task-related activity as monkeys learned which of four saccades was instructed by a novel stimulus. By definition, in addition to changes as the monkeys learned the instructional significance of a novel instruction stimulus, learning-dependent activity also showed task-related modulation for trials instructed by familiar stimuli, whereas learning-selective activity did not. Of the 186 SEF neurons adequately tested, 81 (44%) showed one of these two categories of learning-related change. By contrast, of the 90 FEF neurons adequately tested, only 14 (16%) showed similar properties. This difference was highly statistically significant (chi(2) = 21.1; P < 0.001).3. We also observed persistent differences in activity for trials with familiar versus novel instruction stimuli, which we termed learning-static effects. In some cases, the learning-static effect coexisted with learning-dependent or learning-selective changes in activity, although in others it did not. In the former cases, activity changed systematically during learning, but reached a level that differed from that for familiar stimuli instructing the same saccade. In the latter cases, the activity did not change significantly as the monkey learned new conditional oculomotor associations, but did show a significant difference depending upon whether a novel or familiar stimulus instructed a given saccade. Overall, 66 of 186 (35%) cells in the SEF and 17 of 90 (19%) cells in the FEF showed learning-static effects in one or more task periods. This difference was statistically significant (chi(2) = 7.9; P < 0.005).4. The significant difference in the properties of SEF and FEF cells suggests a functional dissociation of the two areas during conditional oculomotor learning. In this respect, the FEF resembles the primary motor cortex, whereas the SEF resembles the premotor cortex.