Search

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.

Purpose: Hemispheric specialization in saccadic control is still under debate. Here we examine the latency, gain, and peak velocity of reactive and voluntary leftward and rightward saccades to assess the respective roles of eye and hand dominance., Methods: Participants with contrasting hand and eye dominance were asked to make saccades toward a target displayed at 5°, 10°, or 15° left or right of the central fixation point. In separate sessions, reactive and voluntary saccades were elicited by Gap-200, Gap-0, Overlap-600, and Antisaccade procedures., Results: Left-right asymmetries were not found in saccade latencies but appeared in saccade gain and peak velocity. Regardless of the dominant hand, saccades directed to the ipsilateral side relative to the dominant eye had larger amplitudes and faster peak velocities., Conclusions: Left-right asymmetries can be explained by naso-temporal differences for some subjects and by eye dominance for others. Further investigations are needed to examine saccadic parameters more systematically in relation to eye dominance. Indeed, any method that allows one to determine ocular dominance from objective measures based on saccade parameters should greatly benefit clinical applications, such as monovision surgery.

Purpose: To compare the amount, the retention, and the extinction of saccadic adaptation in two groups: 9 adults (23-36 years old) and 9 children (11-14 years old)., Methods: The paradigm used was a classical double-step target to elicit the shortening of saccade gains in response to a 2° backward step (20% of target eccentricity). Two conditions were run in the pre- and postadaptation phases without and with postsaccadic visual feedback, to allow examination of the retention and the extinction of saccadic adaptation., Results: Adaptation of reactive saccades occurred in children as well as adults. Both groups showed a progressive shortening of saccade amplitude and good retention. The main difference concerned the speed of extinction, i.e., return to baseline, which was slower for children., Conclusions: Cerebral structures involved in human short-term adaptation of reactive saccades are functional in regard to adaptive shortening of saccade amplitude. Divergent patterns in the extinction of adaptation between children and adults suggested that lengthening of saccade gain is not yet well established in children. Further investigation is needed to clarify whether processes responsible for backward adaptation are mature before those for forward adaptation.

Participants read sentences containing high- or low-frequency target words under normal reading conditions or disappearing-text conditions (in which the word that was fixated disappeared after 60 ms). Even though the fixated word had disappeared after 60 ms, there was still a robust frequency effect wherein readers fixated longer on low-frequency words than on high-frequency words. Thus, the results are consistent with cognitive-control models of eye movement control and inconsistent with visual/oculomotor-control models. Although the uptake of visual information is clearly important for reading, it is the cognitive processes associated with understanding the fixated words that drive the eyes through the text.