Cited by 145Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Frontoparietal activation with preparation for antisaccades

Brown, Matthew R. G., Vilis, Tutis, Everling, Stefan·2007·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Several current models hold that frontoparietal areas exert cognitive control by biasing task-relevant processing in other brain areas. Previous event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have compared prosaccades and antisaccades, which require subjects to look toward or away from a flashed peripheral stimulus, respectively. These studies found greater activation for antisaccades in frontal and parietal regions at the ends of long (≥6 s) preparatory periods preceding peripheral stimulus presentation. Event-related fMRI studies using short preparatory periods (≤4 s) have not found such activation differences except in the frontal eye field. Here, we identified activation differences associated with short (1-s) preparatory periods by interleaving half trials among regular whole trials in a rapid fMRI design. On whole trials, a colored fixation dot instructed human subjects to make either a prosaccade toward or an antisaccade away from a peripheral visual stimulus. Half trials included only the instruction and not peripheral stimulus presentation or saccade generation. Nonetheless, half trials evoked stronger activation on antisaccades than on prosaccades in the frontal eye field (FEF), supplementary eye field (SEF), left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), intraparietal sulcus (IPS), and precuneus. Greater antisaccade response-related activation was found in FEF, SEF, IPS, and precuneus but not in DLPFC or ACC. These results demonstrate greater preparatory activation for antisaccades versus prosaccades in frontoparietal areas and suggest that prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex are more involved in presetting the saccade network for the antisaccade task than generating the actual antisaccade response.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00460.2007

Cites

69 of 69 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, M. R. G., Vilis, T., & Everling, S.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2007-09
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
1751-1762
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1983908390
Cited by
145
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
antisaccades, prosaccades, saccade preparation, frontoparietal activation, cognitive control, frontal eye field, supplementary eye field, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, intraparietal sulcus, precuneus, eye movements
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Eye Movements, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Parietal Lobe, Photic Stimulation, Saccades, 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