Cited by 336Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyMotor Control and Adaptation

Human fMRI evidence for the neural correlates of preparatory set

Open access
Connolly, Jason D., Goodale, Melvyn A., Menon, Ravi S., Munoz, Douglas P.·2002·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study readiness and intention signals in frontal and parietal areas that have been implicated in planning saccadic eye movements-the frontal eye fields (FEF) and intraparietal sulcus (IPS). To track fMRI signal changes correlated with readiness to act, we used an event-related design with variable gap periods between disappearance of the fixation point and appearance of the target. To track changes associated with intention, subjects were instructed before the gap period to make either a pro-saccade (look at target) or an anti-saccade (look away from target). FEF activation increased during the gap period and was higher for anti- than for pro-saccade trials. No signal increases were observed during the gap period in the IPS. Our findings suggest that within the frontoparietal networks that control saccade generation, the human FEF, but not the IPS, is critically involved in preparatory set, coding both the readiness and intention to perform a particular movement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn969

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The prefrontal cortex is involved in executive cognitive functions such as reasoning, planning, attention, working memory, and some aspects of language.

    “The prefrontal cortex is sometimes described as the “highest” structure of the brain because it is involved in executive cognitive functions such as reasoning, planning, attention, working memory, and some aspects of language (e.g. Connolly et al., 2002).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 336

Authors
Connolly, J. D., Goodale, M. A., Menon, R. S., & Munoz, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Robarts Clinical Trials (CA)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Goodale, Melvyn A.
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2002-11-04
Volume
5
Issue
12
Pages
1345-1352
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2099114757
Cited by
336
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 20
FWCI
9.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
University of Minnesota
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
preparatory set, saccades, frontal eye field, intraparietal sulcus, movement intention, antisaccades, prosaccades, frontoparietal network
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Evoked Potentials, Eye Movements, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Neurons, Orientation, Parietal Lobe, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Space Perception

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