In what follows, we consider what our results say about the functionality of the SEF, and about the application of ICMS in cognitive neuroscience. We consider first the effects of ICMS-SEF on error rates and RTs. One of the most prominent effects of ICMS-SEF is to greatly increase the propensity of anti-saccade errors made toward a contralateral cue (relative to the stimulating electrode; Fig. 2A). While ICMS-SEF also decreased
the propensity of pro-saccade errors made away from a contralateral cue (Fig. 2B), it is doing more that simply promoting the generation of a contralateral saccade: ICMS-SEF also increased substantially the propensity of anti-saccade errors www.selleckchem.com/products/ITF2357(Givinostat).html made toward an ipsilateral cue (Fig. 2B, although this was less than the increase in propensity for contalateral anti-saccade errors), and decreased the propensity of pro-saccade errors made away from an ipsilateral cue (Fig. 2A). These
changes in error propensity cannot be attributed to decreased RTs, as might have been see more expected from a speed–accuracy tradeoff. Instead, the marked increase in anti-saccade errors accompanied substantial increases in RTs, regardless of direction (Fig. 3). We observed a more subtle and much smaller lateralized effect of SEF stimulation on pro-saccade RTs, with RTs increasing or decreasing for ipsilateral or contralateral pro-saccades, respectively. This latter result resembles that reported previously (Yang et al., 2008). One plausible explanation of our results is that ICMS-SEF selectively disrupts the animal’s ability to generate an anti-saccade, regardless of whether the animal was initially instructed to
make a pro- or anti-saccade. This disruption is somewhat lateralized, given the greater increase in propensity for contralateral vs. ipsilateral anti-saccade errors, but clearly effects anti-saccades in both directions. Exactly how such disruption occurs remains to be determined, but it could be that short-duration ICMS-SEF suppresses subsequent activity in the SEF that is required for anti-saccade generation, or perhaps resets the SEF back to the state adopted at the start of the trial. While this type of mechanism would also have to produce the pattern of neck EMG responses we MycoClean Mycoplasma Removal Kit observed (see below), it would explain the bilateral increase in anti-saccade errors, the bilateral decrease in pro-saccade errors and the bilateral increase in the RTs of correct anti-saccades. We favor this interpretation over an alternative explanation that SEF stimulation favors the production of pro-saccades, given the greater level of SEF activity on anti- vs. pro-saccades (Amador et al., 2004), and because a simple bias toward pro-saccades fails to explain the longer RTs for ipsilateral anti-saccade errors compared with ipsilateral pro-saccades.