Following this, the interaction between cue side and task reverses (for 77 ms after cue presentation), with the greatest evoked responses preceding contralaterally directed anti-saccades (solid lines around empty traces in Fig. 6A; solid lines connecting circles in Fig. 6C). Here, the interaction is with the evoked neck muscle response and the rebound of activity following the visual response on neck muscles (hence the greatest activity with all trials I-BET-762 molecular weight involving presentation of an ipsilateral

cue; i.e. ipsilateral pro-saccades, or contralateral anti-saccades). Even here there is still a dependency on task, as a far greater degree of divergence occurs between ipsilateral and contralateral cues for anti-saccades than for pro-saccades (e.g. compare divergence of circles

for anti-saccades vs. squares for pro-saccades; see also the shifts in the frequency histograms for the second last stimulation intervals in Fig. 6E). Across our sample, a similar albeit smaller level of divergence between ipsilateral and contralateral cues for anti-saccades than pro-saccades persisted for the latest stimulation time tested (i.e. rightmost series of data in Fig. 6C). We analysed the increase in evoked neck EMG above baseline with a repeated-measures three-way anova, and revealed significant effects of task, saccade direction and time of stimulation (all P < 10−5), two-way interactions between task and saccade direction and saccade direction and time of stimulation (both P < 10−5) and three-way interactions between all factors (P < 10−5). The symbols in Fig. 6B and C, and the 5-FU supplier frequency histograms in Fig. 6D and E, represent the significance of various changes, and their significance across the sample. In summary, while the evoked responses during the post-cue interval interacted with the visual response on neck muscles elicited in response to cue presentation, greater interactions occurred when

short-duration ICMS-SEF was passed in the context of anti-saccades rather than pro-saccades. Again, ICMS-SEF is not simply driving neck recruitment to the same absolute Exoribonuclease level, but is evoking larger overall response on anti-saccades vs. pro-saccades (to appreciate this, compare the divergence between lines in Fig. 6C vs. B; note as well the different scaling of the y-axis). We delivered short-duration ICMS-SEF while monkeys performed an interleaved pro/anti-saccade task. Consistent with results showing greater SEF activity prior to anti-saccades (Amador et al., 2004), we observed progressively larger effects when stimulation preceded anti-saccades. These effects were diverse and varied in directionality: ICMS-SEF selectively disrupted anti-saccade performance by increasing error rate and prolonging the RTs of correct anti-saccades, but also elicited greater recruitment of a contralateral head-turning synergy on anti-saccade trials.