Fig. 7
Similar postmicrosaccadic suppression of SC visual sensitivity for positive and negative luminance polarities. (a, b) Visual responses of the same example neuron as that shown in Fig. 1e–h. However, here, we show the responses for postmicrosaccadic stimuli instead of premicrosaccadic ones (note that only in these two panels, we included all trials with stimulus onsets within less than + 100 ms from microsaccade onset, just to stay consistent with the example neuron measurement intervals of Fig. 1). As can be seen, there was expected suppression of SC visual sensitivity. n = 31–33 baseline trials and 8–10 postmicrosaccadic trials. (c, d) Contrast sensitivity curves like in Fig. 3a,b. Here, we compared baseline curves to those obtained with stimulus onsets occurring within the interval of + 25 ms to + 75 ms from microsaccade onset. There was similar suppression across luminance polarities (compare c and d). (e, f) Same analyses as in Fig. 3c,d, but for the postmicrosaccadic stimulus trials. At moderate contrast levels (e.g. 20%), there was similar suppression, unlike in the premicrosaccadic intervals in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The solid curves in (e) show the difference in the fitting curves, like we did in Fig. 3c. Note that in (f), we did not apply a fit like in Fig. 3d, because the ratio measure was now not monotonic. However, the data points still show that there was no clear differential effect at moderate contrasts like in the premicrosaccadic intervals. Error bars denote SEM, and all conventions in this figure are similar to those in Figs. 1, 3.
