Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:16:04.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of disparity in the peripheral field on short-latency ocular following responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

K. Kawano ,
Y. Inoue ,
A. Takemura  and
F. A. Miles
K. Kawano
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Section, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukubashi, Ibaraki 305, Japan and Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Y. Inoue
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Section, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukubashi, Ibaraki 305, Japan and Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
A. Takemura
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Section, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukubashi, Ibaraki 305, Japan and Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
F. A. Miles
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Section, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukubashi, Ibaraki 305, Japan and Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ocular following responses induced by brief movements of the visual scene were examined in monkeys for their dependence on disparity in the peripheral field. A random dot pattern was projected onto a tangent screen and partitioned into central and peripheral regions. Test stimuli were velocity steps applied in the central region, while stimuli in the periphery were stationary. The visual images in the central region were seen always in the plane of the screen, while stimuli in the periphery could be seen in front, behind, or in the plane of the screen (achieved by a system of polarizing filters). Initial ocular following responses were larger when the peripheral stimuli were presented with an uncrossed disparity than without disparity. On the other hand, responses were smaller when the peripheral stimuli were presented with crossed disparity (<5.0 deg) than without disparity. The result is consistent with the idea that ocular following responses are dependent on the perceived viewing distance.

Keywords

DisparityMonkeyOcular following responseViewing distance
Type
Short Communication
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , July 1994 , pp. 833 - 837
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allman, J., Miezin, F. & McGuinness, E. (1985). Stimulus specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field: Neurophysio-logical mechanisms for local-global comparisons in visual neurons. Annual Review of Neuroscience 8, 407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busettini, C., Miles, F.A. & Schwarz, U. (1991). Ocular responses to translation and their dependence on viewing distance. II. Motion of the scene. Journal of Neurophysiology 66, 865–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuchs, A.F. & Robinson, D.A. (1966). A method for measuring horizontal and vertical eye movement chronically in the monkey. Journal of Applied Physiology 21, 1068–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, S.J., Richmond, B.J. & Chu, F.C. (1980). Implantation of magnetic search coils for measurement of eye position: An improved method. Vision Research 20, 535–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawano, K. & Miles, F.A. (1986). Short-latency ocular following responses of monkey. II. Dependence on a prior saccadic eye movement. Journal of Neurophysiology 56, 1355–1380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawano, K., Shidara, M., Watanabe, Y. & Yamane, S. (1992 a). Short-latency responses of neurons in dorsolateral pontine nucleus and cortical area MST of alert monkey to movement of large-field visual stimulus. In Vestibular and Brain Stem Control of Eye, Head and Body Movements, ed. Shimazu, H. & Shinoda, Y., pp. 397–404. Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Scientific Societies Press.Google Scholar
Kawano, K., Shidara, M. & Yamane, S. (1992 b). Neural activity in dorsolateral pontine nucleus of alert monkey during ocular following responses. Journal of Neurophysiology 67, 680–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawano, K., Watanabe, Y., Kaji, S. & Yamane, S. (1990). Neuronal activity in the posterior parietal cortex and pontine nucleus of alert monkey during ocular following responses. In Vision, Memory and the Temporal Lobe, ed. Iwai, E. & Mishkin, M., pp. 311–315. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Miles, F.A., Kawano, K. & Optican, L.M. (1986). Short-latency ocular following responses of monkey. I. Dependence on temporospa-tial properties of visual input. Journal of Neurophysiology 56, 1321–1354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, J.-P., Komatsu, H. & Wurtz, R.H. (1992). Disparity sensitivity of neurons in monkey extrastriate area MST. Journal of Neuroscience 12, 2478–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, U., Busettini, C. & Miles, F.A. (1989). Ocular responses to linear motion are inversely proportional to viewing distance. Science 245, 1394–1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, U. & Miles, F.A. (1991). Ocular responses to translation and their dependence on viewing distance. I. Motion of the observer. Journal of Neurophysiology 66, 851–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sedgwick, H.A. (1986). Space perception. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. I, Sensory Processes and Perception, ed. Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L. & Thomas, J.P., pp. 21.1–21.57. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Shidara, M. & Kawano, K. (1993). Role of Purkinje cells in the ventral paraflocculus in short-latency ocular following responses. Experimental Brain Research 93, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, K., Hkosaka, K., Saito, H., Yukie, M., Fukada, Y. & Iwai, E. (1986). Analysis of local and wide-field movements in the superior temporal visual areas of the macaque monkey. Journal of Neuroscience 6, 134–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed