This is the visual response on neck muscles that we have reported previously in a variety selleck chemicals of tasks (Corneil et al., 2004, 2008; Chapman & Corneil, 2011); relative to the side of the SEF electrode, contralateral muscles increase following the presentation of contralateral cues and decrease following the presentation of ipsilateral cues, regardless of whether the monkey ultimately looks toward or away from the cue. Following this visual response, we observed a rebound in recruitment that peaked about 90–110 ms after cue presentation, with activity

decreasing following contralateral cues, and increasing following ipsilateral cues. We now turn to the quantification of the EMG response evoked by short-duration ICMS-SEF. We focus first on the activity evoked during the fixation interval, collapsed across saccade direction. We include the first stimulation time in the post-cue interval (i.e. 10 ms after cue presentation), as this precedes the arrival of visual information in the SEF. Figure 5A displays the normalized EMG response to short-duration ICMS-SEF for a representative site (the same as shown in Fig. 4A), segregated by task and the time of stimulation relative to cue onset. ICMS-SEF evoked robust recruitment at all times, but the magnitude of such recruitment depended on both the task and the

time of stimulation, with ICMS-SEF evoking the greatest recruitment when delivered just

after cue onset in the anti-saccade task. Our analysis of these patterns across our sample selleck screening library is shown in Fig. 5B–E. As shown in Fig. 5C, L-gulonolactone oxidase the increase in evoked neck EMG above baseline diverged progressively as the monkeys prepared to make anti- vs. pro-saccades. Importantly, the magnitude of evoked neck EMG is not simply the reflection of baseline activity (Fig. 5B); ICMS-SEF evoked greater neck EMG as the monkeys prepared to make anti-saccades, despite a lower amount of baseline recruitment preceding stimulation. We observed this trend regardless of eventual saccade direction, and hence the influence of task on stimulation-evoked responses in this interval is not simply an interaction with the subsequent visual response on neck muscles. A repeated-measures two-way anova of the increase in evoked neck EMG above baseline revealed significant effects of task (P < 10−5), time of stimulation (P = 0.0001) and the interaction between these two factors (P = 0.007). The filled symbols in Fig. 5B and C represent observations that differed significantly (Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons) from that observed at the first stimulation interval prior to the consolidation of task instruction. The histograms in Fig. 5D and E represent the comparison of the baseline or increase above baseline on pro- vs. anti-saccades at each stimulation interval across the sample. Note how the bottom two histograms in Fig.