Dear colleagues,
I would like to bring to your attention a recent paper of ours entitled
"NEURAL MODELLING OF ANTISACCADE PERFORMANCE OF HEALTHY CONTROLS AND EARLY
HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE PATIENTS" published in Chaos journal.
Questions, comments, criticism are most welcome. A brief summary of our
paper's findings follow:
The current accepted dogma in the antisaccade task is that a third top-down
inhibitory signal is needed to suppress the error prosaccade in favor of
the antisaccade. In line with this dogma past modelling studies of the
antisaccade task in health and Huntington disease (HD) required the
presence of a third STOP decision signal to suppress in trials the
erroneous response. These models although they provided a successful
mechanistic
view of decision making in the antisaccade task, they failed to
capture all aspects
of antisaccade performance.
Our research work described in our paper offers an alternative view, which
succeeds for the first time to:
1. Capture all aspects of the antisaccade performance of both healthy
controls and early HD patients
2. Offer a mechanistic view of processes taking place in the antisaccade
paradigm
3. Decipher the mechanisms which give rise to the observed slowed and more
variable antisaccade latencies and increased error rates in HD patients
relative to healthycontrols.
The model shows that the poor HD antisaccade performance is not due to a
deficit in the top-down inhibitory control of the erroneous responseas many
speculated, but instead is a productof a competition between two different
neuronal populations each coding for a different decision signal: one coding
for the erroneous prosaccade decision and the other one for antisaccade
decision.
The model accurately reproduces the error rates, response latencies and
latency distributions of antisaccades, error prosaccades and corrected
antisaccades of both healthy controls and HD participants. Our model shows
that the increased variability in the antisaccade and corrected antisaccade RT
distributions of HD participants are due to a slower and noisier accumulation
of information (μ and σ), but the HD patients’ confidence level required
before commitment to a particular course of action is not affected by the
disease.
Our results have major implications in clinical and pharmaceutical
research. Furthermore, our results illustrate the benefits of tightly
integrating psychophysical studies with computational neural modelling,
because the two methods complement each other and they may provide together
a strong basis for hypothesis generation and theory testing regarding the
neural basis of decision making in health and in disease.
Kind regards,
Vassilis Cutsuridis
University of Lincoln
UK
--
EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
To unsubscribe, etc. see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
|