Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

SACCADIC REACTION TIMES IN PATIENTS WITH FRONTAL AND PARIETAL LESIONS

BRAUN, D., WEBER, H., MERGNER, TH., SCHULTE-MÖNTING, J.·1992·Brain

Abstract

The effect of unilateral circumscribed lesions in different areas of the frontal and parietal cortex on the distributions of saccadic reaction times (SRTs) was investigated in 32 patients under four stimulus conditions: (i) gap-random: a target light appeared 200 ms after extinction of a central fixation light randomly at 8 degrees either left or right; (ii) overlap-random: like (i), but the fixation light remained on ('overlap'); (iii) gap-simultaneous: two peripheral lights appeared simultaneously left and right 200 ms after the extinction of the fixation light, one predesignated by instruction as saccadic target; (iv) overlap-simultaneous: like (iii), but the fixation light remained on. Depending on SRT and condition and based on the data of control subjects, we evaluated the percentages of anticipatory (SRT: 0-90 ms), express (91-157 ms) and regular (158-400 ms) saccades, of time (> 400 ms) and direction errors as well as the mean latencies and the standard deviations. These data were compared across control subjects, frontal lobe patients with a lesion in the region of the frontal eye field (FEF), and frontal patients with a lesion outside the FEF, as well as across control subjects, parietal lobe patients with a lesion in the dorsolateral region, and parietal patients with a lesion outside the dorsolateral region. (i) Frontal patients with a lesion in the FEF region showed an increased percentage of express saccades (gap-random condition), especially with saccades directed towards the side of the lesion (ipsilateral). If fixation was not interrupted prior to target appearance (overlap-random), express saccades were largely suppressed, similar to normals. All patients with a frontal lesion, whether in the region of the FEF or not, showed a decreased percentage of contralateral anticipatory saccades (gap-simultaneous), whereas the percentages of direction and time errors were in the normal range, even if more than one stimulus was presented (e.g. overlap-simultaneous condition). (ii) Patients with dorsolateral parietal lesions showed decomposed SRT patterns (high SRT variability, increased percentages of time and direction errors, decreased percentages of express and anticipatory saccades). The decomposition had a contralateral preponderance and increased if more than one stimulus was visible beside the saccadic target. Our results suggest that FEF lesions impair mainly the volitional control over visually triggered express or reflex-like saccades if fixation is disrupted, whereas dorsolateral parietal lesions impair mainly the selection of the visual targets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/115.5.1359

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 193

Metadata

Authors
BRAUN, D., WEBER, H., MERGNER, T., & SCHULTE-MÖNTING, J.
Venue
Brain
Published
1992
Volume
115
Issue
5
Pages
1359-1386
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W1973843233
Cited by
193
References
0
FWCI
9.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SACCADIC REACTION TIMES IN PATIENTS WITH FRONTAL AND PARIETAL LESIONS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/115.5.1359
The paper
BRAUN, D., WEBER, H., MERGNER, T., & SCHULTE-MÖNTING, J. (1992). SACCADIC REACTION TIMES IN PATIENTS WITH FRONTAL AND PARIETAL LESIONS. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/115.5.1359

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.