Recentering bias for temporal saccades only: Evidence from binocular recordings of eye movements.

It is well known that the saccadic system presents multiple asymmetries. Notably, temporal (as opposed to nasal) saccades, centripetal (as opposed to centrifugal) saccades (i.e., the recentering bias) and saccades from the abducting eye (as opposed to the concomitant saccades from the adducting eye) exhibit higher peak velocities. However, these naso-temporal and centripetal-centrifugal asymmetries have always been studied separately. It is thus unknown which asymmetry prevails when there is a conflict between both asymmetries, i.e., in case of centripetal nasal saccades or centrifugal temporal saccades. This study involved binocular recordings of eye movements to examine both the naso-temporal and centripetal-centrifugal asymmetries so as to determine how they work together. Twenty-eight participants had to make saccades toward stimuli presented either centrally or in the periphery in binocular conditions. We found that temporal and abducting saccades always exhibit higher peak velocities than nasal and adducting saccades, irrespective of their centripetal or centrifugal nature. However, we showed that the velocity advantage for centripetal saccades is only found for temporal and not for nasal saccades. Such a result is of importance as it could provide new insights about the physiological origins of the asymmetries found in the saccadic system.

Development and learning of saccadic eye movements in 7- to 42-month-old children.

From birth, infants move their eyes to explore their environment, interact with it, and progressively develop a multitude of motor and cognitive abilities. The characteristics and development of oculomotor control in early childhood remain poorly understood today. Here, we examined reaction time and amplitude of saccadic eye movements in 93 7- to 42-month-old children while they oriented toward visual animated cartoon characters appearing at unpredictable locations on a computer screen over 140 trials. Results revealed that saccade performance is immature in children compared to a group of adults: Saccade reaction times were longer, and saccade amplitude relative to target location (10° eccentricity) was shorter. Results also indicated that performance is flexible in children. Although saccade reaction time decreased as age increased, suggesting developmental improvements in saccade control, saccade amplitude gradually improved over trials. Moreover, similar to adults, children were able to modify saccade amplitude based on the visual error made in the previous trial. This second set of results suggests that short visual experience and/or rapid sensorimotor learning are functional in children and can also affect saccade performance.

Distractor-induced saccade trajectory curvature reveals visual contralateral bias with respect to the dominant eye.

The functional consequences of the visual system lateralization referred to as "eye dominance" remain poorly understood. We previously reported shorter hand reaction times for targets appearing in the contralateral visual hemifield with respect to the dominant eye (DE). Here, we further explore this contralateral bias by studying the influence of laterally placed visual distractors on vertical saccade trajectories, a sensitive method to assess visual processing. In binocular conditions, saccade trajectory curvature was larger toward a distractor placed in the contralateral hemifield with respect to the DE (e.g., in the left visual hemifield for a participant with a right dominant eye) than toward one presented in the ipsilateral hemifield (in the right visual hemifield in our example). When two distractors were present at the same time, the vertical saccade showed curvature toward the contralateral side. In monocular conditions, when one distractor was presented, a similar larger influence of the contralateral distractor was observed only when the viewing eye was the DE. When the non dominant eye (NDE) was viewing, curvature was symmetric for both distractor sides. Interestingly, this curvature was as large as the one obtained for the contralateral distractor when the DE was viewing, suggesting that eye dominance consequences rely on inhibition mechanisms present when the DE is viewing. Overall, these results demonstrate that DE influences visual integration occurring around saccade production and support a DE-based contralateral visual bias.

Quantifying eye dominance strength - New insights into the neurophysiological bases of saccadic asymmetries.

The saccadic system presents asymmetries. Notably, saccadic peak velocity is higher in temporal than in nasal saccades, and in centripetal than in centrifugal saccades. It has already been shown that eye dominance strength relates to naso-temporal asymmetry, but its links with centripetal-centrifugal asymmetry has never been tested. The current study tested both naso-temporal and centripetal-centrifugal asymmetries simultaneously to provide a finer and continuous measure of eye dominance strength. We asked 63 participants to make centripetal and centrifugal saccades from five different locations. Analysis of saccadic peak velocity shows that eye dominance strength modulates every saccadic asymmetry tested. For the first time, we propose a graduated measure of eye dominance strength on a continuum model. The model ranges from weak to very strong eye dominance. Weak eye dominance corresponds to increased saccadic asymmetries whereas strong eye dominance corresponds to no asymmetries. Furthermore, our results provide new insights into the neurophysiological origins of saccadic asymmetries. Modulation of both naso-temporal and centripetal-centrifugal asymmetries by eye dominance strength supports the involvement of V1 in these saccadic asymmetries.

Asymmetry in visual information processing depends on the strength of eye dominance.

Unlike handedness, sighting eye dominance, defined as the eye unconsciously chosen when performing monocular tasks, is very rarely considered in studies investigating cerebral asymmetries. We previously showed that sighting eye dominance has an influence on visually triggered manual action with shorter reaction time (RT) when the stimulus appears in the contralateral visual hemifield with respect to the dominant eye (Chaumillon et al. 2014). We also suggested that eye dominance may be more or less pronounced depending on individuals and that this eye dominance strength could be evaluated through saccadic peak velocity analysis in binocular recordings (Vergilino-Perez et al. 2012). Based on these two previous studies, we further examine here whether the strength of the eye dominance can modulate the influence of this lateralization on manual reaction time. Results revealed that participants categorized as having a strong eye dominance, but not those categorized as having a weak eye dominance, exhibited the difference in RT between the two visual hemifields. This present study reinforces that the analysis of saccade peak velocity in binocular recordings provides an effective tool to better categorize the eye dominance. It also shows that the influence of eye dominance in visuo-motor tasks depends on its strength. Our study also highlights the importance of considering the strength of eye dominance in future studies dealing with brain lateralization.

How Eye Dominance Strength Modulates the Influence of a Distractor on Saccade Accuracy.

PURPOSE: Neuroimaging studies have shown that the dominant eye is linked preferentially to the ipsilateral primary visual cortex. However, its role in perception still is misunderstood. We examined the influence of eye dominance and eye dominance strength on saccadic parameters, contrasting stimulations presented in the two hemifields. METHODS: Participants with contrasted eye dominance (left or right) and eye dominance strength (strong or weak) were asked to make a saccade toward a target displayed at 5° or 7° left or right of a fixation cross. In some trials, a distractor at 3° of eccentricity also was displayed either in the same hemifield as the target (to induce a global effect on saccade amplitude) or in the opposite hemifield (to induce a remote distractor effect on saccade latency). RESULTS: Eye dominance did influence saccade amplitude as participants with strong eye dominance showed more accurate saccades toward the target (weaker global effect) in the hemifield contralateral to the dominant eye than in the ipsilateral one. Such asymmetry was not found in participants with weak eye dominance or when a remote distractor was used. CONCLUSIONS: We show that eye dominance strength influences saccade target selection. We discuss several arguments supporting the view that such advantage may be linked to the relationship between the dominant eye and ipsilateral hemisphere. French Abstract.

Saccadic Adaptation in 10-41 Month-Old Children.

When saccade amplitude becomes systematically inaccurate, adaptation mechanisms gradually decrease or increase it until accurate saccade targeting is recovered. Adaptive shortening and adaptive lengthening of saccade amplitude rely on separate mechanisms in adults. When these adaptation mechanisms emerge during development is poorly known except that adaptive shortening processes are functional in children above 8 years of age. Yet, saccades in infants are consistently inaccurate (hypometric) as if adaptation mechanisms were not fully functional in early childhood. Here, we tested reactive saccade adaptation in 10-41 month-old children compared to a group of 20-30 year-old adults. A visual target representing a cartoon character appeared at successive and unpredictable locations 10° apart on a computer screen. During the eye movement toward the target, it systematically stepped in the direction opposite to the saccade to induce an adaptive shortening of saccade amplitude (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the target stepped in the same direction as the ongoing saccade to induce an adaptive lengthening of saccade amplitude. In both backward and forward adaptation experiments, saccade adaptation was compared to a control condition where there was no intrasaccadic target step. Analysis of baseline performance revealed both longer saccade reaction times and hypometric saccades in children compared to adults. In both experiments, children on average showed gradual changes in saccade amplitude consistent with the systematic intrasaccadic target steps. Moreover, the amount of amplitude change was similar between children and adults for both backward and forward adaptation. Finally, adaptation abilities in our child group were not related to age. Overall the results suggest that the neural mechanisms underlying reactive saccade adaptation are in place early during development.