Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27391390›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

An fMRI Investigation of Preparatory Set in the Human Cerebral Cortex and Superior Colliculus for Pro- and Anti-Saccades.

Michele Furlan, Andrew T Smith, Robin Walker

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michele FurlanRoyal Holloway University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom.
Andrew T SmithRoyal Holloway University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom.
Robin WalkerRoyal Holloway University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom.
Royal Holloway University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have identified several cortical regions that show larger BOLD responses during preparation and execution of anti-saccades than pro-saccades. We confirmed this finding with a greater BOLD response for anti-saccades than pro-saccades during the preparation phase in the FEF, IPS and DLPFC and in the FEF and IPS in the execution phase. We then applied multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA) to establish whether different neural populations are involved in the two types of saccade. Pro-saccades and anti-saccades were reliably decoded during saccade execution in all three cortical regions (FEF, DLPFC and IPS) and in IPS during saccade preparation. This indicates neural specialization, for programming the desired response depending on the task rule, in these regions. In a further study tailored for imaging the superior colliculus in the midbrain a similar magnitude BOLD response was observed for pro-saccades and anti-saccades and the two saccade types could not be decoded with MVPA. This was the case both for activity related to the preparation phase and also for that elicited during the execution phase. We conclude that separate cortical neural populations are involved in the task-specific programming of a saccade while in contrast, the SC has a role in response preparation but may be less involved in high-level, task-specific aspects of the control of saccades.

Indexed as

Cerebral CortexMagnetic Resonance ImagingNerve NetSuperior ColliculiAdultFemaleHumansMaleSaccadesVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID27391390
PMCPMC4938211
OpenAlexW2474519530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.