Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Primate frontal eye fields. III. Maintenance of a spatially accurate saccade signal

Goldberg, M. E., Bruce, C. J.·1990·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

1. We studied the activity of single neurons in the monkey frontal eye fields during oculomotor tasks designed to assess the activity of these neurons when there was a dissonance between the spatial location of a target and its position on the retina. 2. Neurons with presaccadic activity were first studied to determine their receptive or movement fields and to classify them as visual, visuomovement, or movement cells with the use of the criteria described previously (Bruce and Goldberg 1985). The neurons were then studied by the use of double-step tasks that dissociated the retinal coordinates of visual targets from the dimensions of saccadic eye movements necessary to acquire those targets. These tasks required that the monkeys make two successive saccades to follow two sequentially flashed targets. Because the second target disappeared before the first saccade occurred, the dimensions of the second saccade could not be based solely on the retinal coordinates of the target but also depended on the dimensions of the first saccade. We used two versions of the double-step task. In one version neither target appeared in the cell's receptive or movement field, but the second eye movement was the optimum amplitude and direction for the cell (right-EM/wrong-RF task). In the other the second stimulus appeared in the cell's receptive field, but neither eye movement was appropriate for the cell (wrong-EM/right-RF task). 3. Most frontal-eye-field cells discharged in the right-EM/wrong-RF version of the double-step task. Their discharge began after the first saccade and continued until the second saccade was made. They usually discharged even on occasional trials in which the monkey failed to make the second saccade. They discharged much less, or not at all, in the wrong-EM/right-RF version of the double-step paradigm. Thus most presaccadic cells in the frontal eye fields were tuned to the dimensions of saccadic eye movements rather than to the coordinates of retinal stimulation. 4. Eleven movement cells (including 1 which also had independent postsaccadic activity for saccades opposite its presaccadic movement field) were studied, and all had significant activity in the right-EM/wrong-RF task. 5. Almost all (28/32) visuomovement cells, including 12 with independent postsaccadic activity, discharged in the right-EM/wrong-RF task. None of the four that failed had independent postsaccadic activity. 6. The majority (26/40) of visual cells were responsive in the right-EM/wrong-RF task.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

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 · 10.1152/jn.1990.64.2.489

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 404

Metadata

Authors
Goldberg, M. E., & Bruce, C. J.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
1990-08-01
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
489-508
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2269963436
Cited by
404
References
0
FWCI
16.47
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: Primate frontal eye fields. III. Maintenance of a spatially accurate saccade signal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.1990.64.2.489
The paper
Goldberg, M. E., & Bruce, C. J. (1990). Primate frontal eye fields. III. Maintenance of a spatially accurate saccade signal. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1990.64.2.489

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.