NASA NTRS2010
The time that elapses between stimulus onset and the onset of a saccadic eye movement is longer and more variable than can be explained by neural transmission times and synaptic delays (Carpenter, 1981, in: Eye Movements: Cognition & Visual Perception, Earlbaum). In theory, noise underlying response-time (RT) variability could arise at any point along the sensorimotor cascade, from sensory noise arising Vvithin the early visual processing shared Vvith perception to noise in the motor criterion or commands necessary to trigger movements. These two loci for internal noise can be distinguished empirically; sensory internal noise predicts that response time Vvill correlate Vvith perceived stimulus magnitude whereas motor internal noise predicts no such correlation. Methods. We used the data described by Liston and Stone (2008, JNS 28:13866-13875), in which subjects performed a 2AFC saccadic brightness discrimination task and the perceived brightness of the chosen stimulus was then quantified in a second 21FC perceptual task. Results. We binned each subject's data into quartiles for both signal strength (from dimmest to brightest) and RT (from slowest to fastest) and analyzed the trends in perceived brightness. We found significant effects of both signal strength (as expected) and RT on normalized perceived brightness (both p less than 0.0001, 2-way ANOVA), without significant interaction (p = 0.95, 2-way ANOVA). A plot of normalized perceived brightness versus normalized RT show's that more than half of the variance was shared (r2 = 0.56, P less than 0.0001). To rule out any possibility that some signal-strength related artifact was generating this effect, we ran a control analysis on pairs of trials with repeated presentations of identical stimuli and found that stimuli are perceived to be brighter on trials with faster saccades (p less than 0.001, paired t-test across subjects). Conclusion. These data show that shared early visual internal noise jitters perceived brightness and the saccadic motor output in parallel. While the present correlation could theoretically result, either directly or indirectly, from some low-level brainstem or retinal mechanism (e.g., arousal, pupil size, photoreceptor noise) that influences both visual and oculomotor circuits, this is unlikely given the earlier fin ding that the variability in perceived motion direction and smooth-pursuit motor output is highly correlated (Stone and Krauzlis, 2003, JOV 3:725-736), suggesting that cortical circuits contribute to the shared internal noise.