Search

The pupil constricts in response to an increase in global luminance level, commonly referred to as the pupil light reflex. Recent research has shown that these reflex responses are modulated by high-level cognition. There is larger pupil constriction evoked by a bright stimulus when the stimulus location spatially overlaps with the locus of attention, and these effects have been extended to saccade planning and working memory (here referred to as pupil local-luminance modulation). Although research in monkeys has further elucidated a central role of the frontal eye field (FEF) and superior colliculus in the pupil local-luminance modulation, their roles remain to be established in humans. Through applying continuous theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right FEF (and vertex) to inhibit its activity, we investigated the role of the FEF in human pupil local-luminance responses. Pupil light reflex responses were transiently evoked by a bright patch stimulus presented during the delay period in the visual- and memory-delay tasks. In the visual-delay task, larger pupil constriction was observed when the patch location was spatially aligned with the target location in both stimulation conditions. More interestingly, after FEF stimulation, larger pupil constriction was obtained when the patch was presented in the contralateral, compared to the ipsilateral visual field of the stimulation. In contrast, FEF stimulation effects were absence in the memory-delay task. Linear mixed model results further found that stimulation condition, patch location consistency, and visual field significantly modulated observed pupil constriction responses. Together, our results constitute the first evidence of FEF modulation in human pupil local-luminance responses.

Patient suffering of major depressive disorder (MDD) often complain that subjective time seems to “drag” with respect to physical time. This may point toward a generalized dysfunction of temporal processing in MDD. In the present study, we investigated temporal preparation in MDD. “Temporal preparation” refers to an increased readiness to act before an expected event; consequently, reaction time should be reduced. MDD patients and age-matched controls were required to make a saccadic eye movement between a central and an eccentric visual target after a variable duration preparatory period. We found that MDD patients produced a larger number of premature saccades, saccades initiated prior to the appearance of the expected stimulus. These saccades were not temporally controlled; instead, they seemed to reflect reduced inhibitory control causing oculomotor impulsivity. In contrast, the latency of visually guided saccades was strongly influenced by temporal preparation in controls; significantly less so, in MDD patients. This observed reduced temporal preparation in MDD was associated with a faster decay of short-term temporal memory. Moreover, in patients producing a lot of premature responses, temporal preparation to early imperative stimuli was increased. In conclusion, reduced temporal preparation and short-term temporal memory in the oculomotor domain supports the hypothesis that temporal processing was altered in MDD patients. Moreover, oculomotor impulsivity interacted with temporal preparation. These observed deficits could reflect other underlying aspects of abnormal time experience in MDD.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been extensively used to examine whether neural activities can be selectively increased or decreased with manipulations of current polarity. Recently, the field has reevaluated the traditional anodal-increase and cathodal-decrease assumption due to the growing number of mixed findings that report the effects of the opposite directions. Therefore, the directionality of tDCS polarities and how it affects each individual still remain unclear. In this study, we used a visual working memory (VWM) paradigm and systematically manipulated tDCS polarities, types of different independent baseline measures, and task difficulty to investigate how these factors interact to determine the outcome effect of tDCS. We observed that only low-performers, as defined by their no-tDCS corsi block tapping (CBT) performance, persistently showed a decrement in VWM performance after anodal stimulation, whereas no tDCS effect was found when participants were divided by their performance in digit span. In addition, only the optimal level of task difficulty revealed any significant tDCS effect. All these findings were consistent across different blocks, suggesting that the tDCS effect was stable across a short period of time. Lastly, there was a high degree of intra-individual consistency in one's responsiveness to tDCS, namely that participants who showed positive or negative effect to anodal stimulation are also more likely to show the same direction of effects for cathodal stimulation. Together, these findings imply that tDCS effect is interactive and state dependent: task difficulty and consistent individual differences modulate one's responsiveness to tDCS, while researchers' choices of independent behavioral baseline measures can also critically affect how the effect of tDCS is evaluated. These factors together are likely the key contributors to the wide range of "noises" in tDCS effects between individuals, between stimulation protocols, and between different studies in the literature. Future studies using tDCS, and possibly tACS, should take such state-dependent condition in tDCS responsiveness into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dorsal attentional network is known for its role in directing top-down visual attention toward task-relevant stimuli. This goal-directed nature of the dorsal network makes it a suitable candidate for processing and extracting predictive information from the visual environment. In this review we briefly summarize some of the findings that delineate the neural substrates that contribute to predictive learning at both levels within the dorsal attentional system: including the frontal eye field (FEF) and posterior parietal cortex (PPC). We also discuss the similarities and differences between these two regions when it comes to learning predictive information. The current findings from the literature suggest that the FEFs may be more involved in top-down spatial attention, whereas the parietal cortex is involved in processing task-relevant attentional influences driven by stimulus salience, both contribute to the processing of predictive cues at different time points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]