May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Antisaccadic performance with various types of biofeedback
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • T.H. Sanctuary
    Department of Ophalmology, Faculty of Medical and Biological Sciences, Leicester LE2 7LX, United Kingdom
  • F. Proudlock
    Department of Ophalmology, Faculty of Medical and Biological Sciences, Leicester LE2 7LX, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  T.H. Sanctuary, None; F. Proudlock, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 2510. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      T.H. Sanctuary, F. Proudlock; Antisaccadic performance with various types of biofeedback . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):2510.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:Auditory biofeedback has been previously used to influence both pathological eye movements such as congenital nystagmus and physiological eye movements such as optokinetic nystagmus. We have developed of a new method to provide tactile and kinaesthetic biofeedback of eye movements. We have investigated the effect of auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile feedback upon antisaccadic performance in normal subjects. Methods:Eye movements were recorded from fifteen subjects using a high–resolution infrared pupil tracker (EyeLink, Sensomotoric instruments). On–line eye movement recordings were used to drive either an auditory signal, a moving handle gripped with the fingers (kinaesthetic feedback) or a ribbed wheel moving across the digit tips (tactile feedback). The subjects performed an antisaccadic tasks (looking in the opposite direction to a saccadic target) when auditory, kinaesthetic or tactile feedback was provided or with no feedback. The number of errors was calculated in each condition Results:Auditory feedback significantly reduced the number of errors made during the antisaccadic task compared to no feedback (P<0.05) whereas kinaesthetic and tactile feedback had no significant effect. Conclusions:Auditory feedback significantly improves antisaccadic performance in control subjects while kinaesthetic and tactile feedback does not significantly improve performance.

Keywords: eye movements: saccades and pursuits • ocular motor control • neuro–ophthalmology: cortical function/rehabilitation 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×