Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Frontal Oculomotor Regions during Smooth Pursuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the frontal eye fields (FEFs) and supplementary eye fields (SEFs) are known to be involved in smooth pursuit eye movements. It has been shown recently that stimulation of the smooth-pursuit area of the FEF [frontal pursuit area (FPA)] in monkey increases the pursuit response to unexpected changes in target motion during pursuit. In the current study, we applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the FPA and SEF in humans during sinusoidal pursuit to assess its effects on the pursuit response to predictable, rather than unexpected, changes in target motion. For the FPA, we found that TMS applied immediately before the target reversed direction increased eye velocity in the new direction, whereas TMS applied in mid-cycle, immediately before the target began to slow, decreased eye velocity. For the SEF, TMS applied at target reversal increased eye velocity in the new direction but had no effect on eye velocity when applied at mid-cycle. TMS of the control region (leg region of the somatosensory cortex) did not affect eye velocity at either point. Previous stimulation studies of FPA during pursuit have suggested that this region is involved in controlling the gain of the transformation of visual signals into pursuit motor commands. The current results suggest that the gain of the transformation of predictive signals into motor commands is also controlled by the FPA. The effect of stimulation of the SEF is distinct from that of the FPA and suggests that its role in sinusoidal pursuit is primarily at the target direction reversal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".