Cited by 222Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Executive control of countermanding saccades by the supplementary eye field

Stuphorn, Veit, Schall, Jeffrey D·2006·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

The supplementary eye field registers the occurrence of conflict, errors and reward in macaque monkeys performing a saccade-countermanding task. Using intracortical microstimulation, we determined whether the supplementary eye field only monitors or can actually influence performance. Weak microstimulation of many sites in the supplementary eye field improved monkeys' performance on a 'stop signal' task by delaying saccade initiation. This effect depended on the context of the task because simple visually guided saccades were not delayed by the same stimulation. These results demonstrate that the supplementary eye field can exert contextual executive control over saccade generation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn1714

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In monkeys, oculomotor response inhibition may be regulated by the supplementary eye field, which can inhibit the initiation of eye movements.

    “In monkeys, oculomotor response inhibition may be regulated by a specific prefrontal cortical area, the supplementary eye field, that can inhibit the initiation of eye movements [65].”

    From Linking ADHD to the Neural Circuitry of Attention (2017) · cites this paper as [65]

  • Several studies indicate that people proactively alter response strategies when they anticipate stop signals, sacrificing go-task speed for stop-task success.

    “Several studies suggest that subjects change response strategies proactively when they expect stop signals to occur, trading speed in the go task for success in the stop task [2, 7].”

    From Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm (2008) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stuphorn, V., & Schall, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Stuphorn, Veit
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2006-05-28
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
925-931
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2134718932
Cited by
222
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
7.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH055806, R01-MH55806)
  • National Eye Institute (P30-EY08126, P30EY008126)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30HD015052)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
supplementary eye field, stop-signal task, executive function, saccade initiation, intracortical microstimulation, error monitoring, conflict detection, reward processing, macaque, visually guided saccades
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Brain Mapping, Electric Stimulation, Eye, Frontal Lobe, Functional Laterality, Macaca radiata, Male, Neural Inhibition, Neurons, Reaction Time, Saccades, Sensory Thresholds, Visual Fields

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review