Download Control of eye orientation: where does the brain`s role end

European Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 19, pp. 1±10, 2004
ß Federation of European Neuroscience Societies
REVIEW ARTICLE
Control of eye orientation: where does the brain's role end
and the muscle's begin?
Dora E. Angelaki1 and Bernhard J. M. Hess2
1
2
Department of Neurobiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St Louis, MO 63110, USA
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland
Keywords: computation, eye movement, kinematics, modelling, motor control, pursuit, saccades, torsion, vestibuloocular re¯ex
Abstract
Our understanding of how the brain controls eye movements has bene®ted enormously from the comparison of neuronal activity with eye
movements and the quanti®cation of these relationships with mathematical models. Although these early studies focused on horizontal and
vertical eye movements, recent behavioural and modelling studies have illustrated the importance, but also the complexity, of extending
previous conclusions to the problems of controlling eye and head orientation in three dimensions (3-D). An important facet in understanding
3-D eye orientation and movement has been the discovery of mobile, soft-tissue sheaths or `pulleys' in the orbit which might in¯uence the
pulling direction of extraocular muscles. Appropriately placed pulleys could generate the eye-position-dependent tilt of the ocular rotation
axes which are characteristic for eye movements which follow Listing's law. Based on such pulley models of the oculomotor plant it has
recently been proposed that a simple two-dimensional (2-D) neural controller would be suf®cient to generate correct 3-D eye orientation and
movement. In contrast to this apparent simpli®cation in oculomotor control, multiple behavioural observations suggest that the visuo-motor
transformations, as well as the premotor circuitry for saccades, pursuit eye movements and the vestibulo-ocular re¯exes, must include a
neural controller which operates in 3-D, even when considering an eye plant with pulleys. This review summarizes the most recent work and
ideas on this controversy. In addition, by proposing directly testable hypotheses, we point out that, in analogy to the previously successful
steps towards elucidating the neural control of horizontal eye movements, we need a quantitative characterization ®rst of motoneuron and
next of premotor neuron properties in 3-D before we can succeed in gaining further insight into the neural control of 3-D motor behaviours.
Introduction
Understanding the neural organization of motor systems has bene®ted
enormously from a combined approach of modelling, behavioural and
single-unit electrophysiological techniques. The close interplay
between system analysis approaches and neurophysiology has led
in the 1970s and 80s to a revolution in our understanding of the neural
control of eye movements (Robinson, 1968, 1970, 1981). The easy
accessibility of oculomotor-related brainstem and cerebellar areas
using standard electrophysiological recording techniques in alert
primates has provided a model motor system whose organization
has become well understood in both health and disease.
In most of these early pioneering neurophysiological and modelling
studies, emphasis was primarily placed on the dynamic aspects of eye
movements, largely ignoring their spatial organization. Accordingly,
most quantitative motoneuron and premotor single-neuron studies
have concentrated on either horizontal or vertical eye movements
(Fuchs & Luschei, 1970, 1971; Robinson, 1970; Henn & Cohen, 1973;
Pola & Robinson, 1978; Van Gisbergen et al., 1981; Henn et al., 1982;
Tomlinson & Robinson, 1984; Fuchs et al., 1985, 1988; Hepp & Henn,
1985; Delgado-Garcia et al., 1986; De la Cruz et al., 1989; Scudder &
Fuchs, 1992; Cullen & Guitton, 1997; Sylvestre & Cullen, 1999;
Cullen et al., 2000). The restriction to the horizontal±vertical dimension, however, does not do justice to the full movement range of the
Correspondence: Dr Dora Angelaki, as above.
E-mail: [email protected]
Received 27 June 2003, revised 3 October 2003, accepted 3 October 2003
doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.03068.x
eyes, each of which is controlled by three pairs of muscles and capable
of rotating in three dimensions (3-D). Only a handful of neurophysiological studies have taken into account 3-D eye orientation and
movement when evaluating neuronal discharges (Angelaki & Dickman, 2003; Van Opstal et al., 1991; Hepp et al., 1993; Van Opstal et al.,
1996; Suzuki et al., 1999; Scherberger et al., 2001). Whereas a onedimensional dynamic system analysis approach was suf®cient to
bridge the gap between neural recording and the observed 2-D
oculomotor behaviour, it falls short of addressing the more complicated kinematics of 3-D rotations (Goldstein, 1980). Although the
computationally intriguing but nonintuitive 3-D kinematic issues have
motivated numerous experimental and theoretical studies, they still
remain in the forefront of current controversies in recent oculomotor
research. In this review we attempt to summarize the current status of
the accumulated knowledge and address the controversies related to
the control of 3-D eye orientation and movement.
Strategies specifying the third degree of freedom
of ocular rotations: full field vs. foveal vision
For ocular movements with the goal to stabilize images on the whole
retina, the brain has to unambiguously specify all three degrees of
freedom of the eye, which determine 3-D ocular orientation. One such
example is the rotational vestibulo-ocular re¯ex (RVOR), which
causes a compensatory eye rotation that is matched in angular velocity
and direction to head rotation. Accordingly, not just gaze direction,
which is de®ned by the horizontal and vertical components of the eye
2 D. E. Angelaki and B. J. M. Hess
movement, but also the torsion of the eyes, are proportional to the
respective three-rotational components of the head movement (Misslisch et al., 1994; Misslisch & Hess, 2000). Such a strategy results in
stabilization of the full visual ®eld. On the other hand, if the functional
goal of an eye movement is to stabilize binocular gaze and keep images
in a particular depth plane stable on the foveae, such as during pursuit
of a small moving target, it suf®ces to control the two degrees of
freedom of gaze direction (of each eye), leaving ocular torsion
unspeci®ed. Among the in®nite possible 3-D orientations which the
eyeball could adopt, it is now well-established that the torsional
orientation of the eye is uniquely speci®ed by gaze direction and
vergence, a strategy which is appropriate for foveal and stereo vision
(Schreiber et al., 2001). Accordingly, both smooth pursuit and saccadic
eye movements obey robust kinematic constraints known as Listing's
law (Tweed & Vilis, 1987, 1990; Haslwanter et al., 1991; Tweed et al.,
1992): when expressed in a head-®xed coordinate system, all eye
orientations during pursuit and saccades are con®ned to a single plane,
referred to as `Listing's plane' (Ferman et al., 1987; Tweed & Vilis,
1987, 1990). The orientation of this plane depends on the reference
position used to express eye orientations. Among all possible eye
orientations, there is a unique reference position, known as `primary
position', for which the plane orientation coincides with the horizontal±vertical plane (i.e. torsion is zero; Fig. 1).
An example of the spatial distribution of eye positions for pursuit
and saccades is illustrated in Fig. 2, where 3-D eye orientation during
spontaneous eye movements in the light (Fig. 2A) and visually guided
pursuit at different vertical or horizontal eccentricities (Fig. 2B) are
plotted as the corresponding projections onto the pitch (top) or frontal
(bottom) plane. During both saccades and pursuit, the torsional
excursions are small (having a SD1), unlike the large oculomotor
range in horizontal and vertical directions. The orientation of eye
position planes during both pursuit and saccades exhibits a small but
systematic dependence on static and dynamic head orientation relative
to gravity (Haslwanter et al., 1992; Hess & Angelaki, 1997a,b, 2003).
The Listing's law strategy provides a solution to the unspeci®ed thirddegree of freedom problem during fovea-related eye movements
whose goal is to control the direction of gaze (de®ned only by the
Fig. 1. Primary position and Listing's plane. There is a unique orientation of the
eye, called `primary position' or `primary gaze direction' (direction parallel to
x-axis), such that pure vertical and pure horizontal eye movements that move the
eye or gaze line from primary to secondary positions, do not change ocular
torsion (eye rotations along the respective meridians through A or through C).
Similarly, any movement that rotates the eye/gaze line from primary to tertiary
positions in oblique meridian planes does not change torsion (e.g. movements
along the meridians through B or D). The axes of single rotations that move the
eye from primary to secondary or tertiary positions lie all in one plane, called
Listing's plane (plane containing y- and z-axes). Tertiary positions cannot be
reached from secondary positions by any combination of horizontal and vertical
ocular rotations (a torsional component is also needed; see half-angle rule).
Fig. 2. Spatial plots of three-dimensional eye positions during (A) spontaneous
®xations and/or saccades and (B) smooth pursuit eye movements. (Top) Sagittal
plane, where horizontal (Ehor) are plotted vs. torsional (Etor) eye positions.
(Bottom) Frontal plane, where horizontal (Ehor) are plotted vs. vertical (Ever)
eye positions (see schematic monkey heads). In B, eye movements were
recorded during horizontal and vertical pursuit (0.1 Hz, 158) at different
eccentricities. All eye positions have been expressed relative to the primary
position (dashed lines) which is in general different from the straight-ahead
position.
horizontal and vertical components of eye position) with little regard
for the peripheral retina. In contrast, because of the goal to stabilize
images on the whole retina, the RVOR does not follow Listing's law
(Misslisch et al., 1994; Misslisch & Hess, 2000).
Perhaps the most fundamental but relatively nonintuitive aspect of
3-D kinematics is that in general a gaze-dependent torsional eye
velocity component is necessary to keep ocular orientation in Listing's
plane during eye movements. Whenever gaze changes direction during
saccades or smooth pursuit, the axis about which the eye actually
rotates tilts in an eye-position-dependent manner out of Listing's plane
with the effect of keeping ocular orientation aligned with Listing's
plane. This important kinematic effect has been called the velocity
criterion of Listing's law (von Helmholtz, 1867) and is usually referred
to as the `half-angle rule' (Fig. 3; Tweed & Vilis, 1987, 1990; Tweed
et al., 1992; Misslisch et al., 1994). It states that, during eye movements from nonprimary eye positions, the angular velocity axis of the
eye tilts out of Listing's plane by approximately half the deviation of
gaze from primary position (Fig. 3). Related to these eye-positiondependent effects is the fact that the time derivative of eye orientation
(EÇ ˆ dE/dt) differs from the angular velocity (V) in 3-D, unless the eye
is in the primary position. (The concept of angular velocity
describes the velocity of rotation of the eye about a ®xed axis.)
Mathematically, the relationship between eye position and angular
velocity in 3-D is captured in the following equation (Goldstein, 1980;
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
Control of 3-D eye orientation
Fig. 3. According to Listing's law, the axis of rotation of the eye (V) is neither
head-®xed nor eye-®xed, but rotates in the same direction as gaze through half
the gaze angle (u/2; half-angle rule). Thus, at eccentric eye positions, during a
horizontal saccade or pursuit eye movement, the axis of rotation of the eye is not
purely horizontal (head-vertical dashed line) but also has a torsional component
(head-horizontal dashed line).
Tweed & Vilis, 1987):
1
E_ ˆ V o E
2
…1†
where the eye orientation, E, the rate of change (derivative) of eye
orientation, EÇ, and angular velocity, V, are expressed as quaternions
(Tweed & Vilis, 1987) and `o' denotes a quaternion product. Quaternions can be looked upon as four-dimensional vectors. Thus, eye
orientation E can conveniently be represented as a 4-D vector
E ˆ (E0 E1 E2 E3)0 (the prime indicates that E is a column vector).
Based on the Euler axis-angle representation (Goldstein, 1980), any
ocular orientation can be uniquely described with a 4-D vector by
setting E0 ˆ cos (r/2) and ~
E ˆ (E1 E2 E3)0 ˆ~
n sin(r/2) where
v 1
0
u
3
uX
~
Ei2 A
n ˆ @~
E t
1
(i.e. ~
n is a vector of unitary length). With this tool at hand, we can
associate any orientation of the eye relative to a reference orientation
(usually primary position) by specifying just four parameters, an angle
(r) and axis ~
n (three parameters) about which the eye has been rotated
relative to the reference position.
If we associate the 3-D vector of angular velocity with the quaternion V ˆ (0 V1 V2 V3) we can write the quaternion product
(denoted by `o') in eqn (1) in the more familiar form of a matrixvector product:
0
E0
B
_E ˆ 1BE1
2@E2
E3
E1
E0
E3
E2
E2
E3
E0
E1
10 1
0
0
E3
B C
B
E2 C
CBO1 C ˆ 1B
E1 A@O2 A 2@
E0
O3
1
E1 E2 E3 0 1
O1
E0 E3 E2 C
C@O2 A …2†
A
E3 E0 E1
O3
E2 E1 E0
Reversing the position of V and E in eqn (1) and calculating the
matrix±vector product according to eqn (2) shows that this product is
not commutative (due to the minus signs in rows 2±4). This relation-
3
ship between eye orientation, E, and angular velocity, V, relates to the
mathematical fact that 3-D rotations do not commute (Goldstein,
1980). One consequence of this noncommutativity is illustrated in
Fig. 4, which shows the fact that ®nal gaze direction differs if one
commutes the order of a pure horizontal eye movement followed by a
pure vertical eye movement of equal magnitude. The noncommutativity of eqn (1) entails the following paradox: eye orientations (E) in
Listing's plane have zero torsion (e.g. Fig. 2), but eye movements from
any orientation other than the primary position need to adjust torsion
and thus require an eye velocity (V) with a nonzero torsional component (e.g. Fig. 3) to stay in Listing's plane. This nonintuitive property
represents a fundamental feature of 3-D ocular kinematics.
An example of such an eye-position-dependent angular velocity is
illustrated in Fig. 5 for smooth pursuit eye movements. During horizontal smooth pursuit with gaze straight ahead, for example, eye
movements are purely horizontal with negligible modulation in torsional eye velocity (Fig. 5, middle). Because of the kinematic constraints of Listing's law, however, a combination of both horizontal and
torsional eye velocity is observed during pursuit of a target which is
moving horizontally in eccentric positions. During horizontal pursuit
with gaze up, for example, a negative (counterclockwise relative to the
animal) torsion accompanies the positive (leftward) component of
pursuit (Fig. 5, top). The opposite is true for down gaze (Fig. 5,
bottom). As a result, the instantaneous axis of rotation of the eye tilts
away from a purely head-horizontal axis in the same direction as gaze,
through approximately half the gaze angle, as illustrated when eye
velocity is plotted in head coordinates (Fig. 5, right). All fovea-related
eye movements, including both smooth pursuit and saccades (Tweed &
Vilis, 1987, 1990; Haslwanter et al., 1991; Tweed et al., 1992), have
been shown to follow Listing's law and exhibit this eye-positiondependent tilt.
The generation of such an eye-position-dependent velocity has been
the subject of considerable debate and continues to be at the forefront
of contemporary oculomotor research in recent years. The controversy
has primarily centred on issues of neural vs. mechanical contributions
to the control of torsion during saccadic eye movements (Demer et al.,
2000; Haustein, 1989; Schnabolk & Raphan, 1994; Tweed et al., 1994;
Quaia & Optican, 1998; Raphan, 1998). This review addresses the two
con¯icting views on this question and attempts to summarize the pros
and cons of each based on recent experimental and modelling efforts.
The controversy about ocular torsion
Several recent studies have focused on how torsional eye velocity
components, necessary to keep eye position in Listing's plane during
eye movements, are generated. Tweed & Vilis (1987, 1990) ®rst
addressed the problem in the late 1980s. These authors pointed out
that traditional oculomotor concepts that were well established for the
horizontal system, like that of the velocity-to-position neural integrator
(Cannon & Robinson, 1987; Skavenski & Robinson, 1973; Robinson,
1981), needed to be re-evaluated when considering 3-D eye movements. They proposed the following two generalizations: ®rst, replacing the traditional one- or two-parametric descriptions (i.e.
horizontal±vertical) of eye position with the concept of ocular orientation based on Euler's theorem about the motion of rigid bodies
(Goldstein, 1980); second, for describing eye velocity they proposed
using the natural generalization of angular velocity from 2-D to 3-D.
Based on these seemingly innocuous generalizations, rather incisive
revisions in widely used oculomotor models became necessary simply
because, as Tweed & Vilis (1987) pointed out, angular velocity is not
the derivative of eye orientation in 3-D [(V 6ˆ EÇ; eqn (1)]. Accordingly,
the extension of the neural integration concept in 3-D requires the
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
4 D. E. Angelaki and B. J. M. Hess
Fig. 4. Non-commutativity of rotations. Schematic 3-D view of the horizontal and vertical oculomotor range (left): horizontal gaze movements rotate the eye or gaze
line in the horizontal meridian plane (x±y plane) or in, respectively, parallel planes by simultaneously changing vertical eccentricity (for example, along the arcs F0 ±G0
or E0 ±H0 ); in contrast, movements at constant vertical eccentricity are mixed horizontal±torsional movements which rotate the eye in meridian planes (for example,
along the arc F±G or E±H). Vertical gaze movements rotate the eye or gaze line in the vertical meridian plane (x±z pane) or in, respectively, parallel planes by changing
simultaneously horizontal eccentricity (for example, along the arcs E±F or H±G); in contrast, movements at constant horizontal eccentricity are mixed vertical±
torsional movements which rotate the eye in meridian planes (for example, along the arc E0 ±F0 or H0 ±G0 ). As a consequence, combinations of horizontal and vertical
gaze shifts lead to different ®nal gaze orientations, depending on the order of rotation (compare gaze vectors OG and OG0 ; O, centre of sphere; G and G0 , points on
surface of unit sphere). (Right) Same as drawing on the left, but frontal view, illustrating the end position of the gaze vector (black and grey dots) after commuting the
horizontal and vertical movement components of equal amplitude. Horizontal rotations (about the z-axis), followed by vertical rotations (about the y-axis) result in
®nal gaze directions (black doted traces and dots) which deviate from those obtained by reversing the order of rotations (grey traces and dots). This difference
increases as gaze eccentricity increases. For example, reversing the order of vertical and horizontal rotations through 10, 20 and 308 results in ®nal gaze directions
which differ from each other by 0.2, 1.7 and 5.48,
respectively. Note „that the ®nal gaze directions differ from each other even though the integrals of the respective
„
_
_
angular velocities are identical, i.e. a ‡ b ˆ …a_ ‡ b†dt
ˆ b ‡ a ˆ …b_ ‡ a†dt
(where a_ is the horizontal and b_ the vertical angular velocity).
incorporation of nonlinear (multiplicative) mathematical operations in
order to implement eqn (1) under the assumption that the directions of
action of extraocular muscles remain head-®xed and independent of
eye position (Tweed & Vilis, 1987, 1990). The 3-D integrator scheme
proposed by Tweed and Vilis has been illustrated in Fig. 6. This
revolutionary proposal assigned the computational load imposed by
the 3-D kinematics to premotor neural networks (Fig. 7a). Furthermore, it assumed that premotor and motor neurons encode the 3-D
angular velocity of the eye, an assumption which, as will be summarized
below, has a ®rm basis for the vestibulo-ocular re¯ex and smooth
pursuit eye movements, although not necessarily for the saccadic system.
Indeed, both of these hypotheses have recently been challenged, at
least for saccadic eye movements. First, it has been proposed that
mobile soft-tissue sheaths or `pulleys' in the orbit in¯uence the pulling
direction of the extraocular muscles (Demer et al., 2000; Kono et al.,
2002). Second, Henn and colleagues failed to ®nd clear evidence for a
neural representation of 3-D angular velocity (V) in the premotor
pathway for saccadic eye movements (van Opstal et al., 1991, 1996;
Hepp et al., 1993, 1999; Scherberger et al., 2001). The former result
has fuelled a mechanical hypothesis for the implementation of 3-D
kinematics (Fig. 7b) which, at least in its original formulation, was
diametrically opposite to the 3-D neural controller hypothesis of
Tweed & Vilis (1987).
Passive and active pulley hypotheses
There is growing evidence that most current oculomotor models
oversimplify the mechanics of the peripheral ocular plant. Speci®cally,
several recent studies have reported the existence of mobile soft-tissue
sheaths or pulleys in the orbit, composed of collagen, elastin and
smooth muscle ®bres which appear to in¯uence the pulling direction of
the extraocular muscles (Demer et al., 1995, 2000; Miller, 1989; Miller
et al., 1993; Sappey, 2001; Simonsz, 2001). Based on theoretical
arguments, it was proposed that pulleys might simplify the brain's
work in implementing Listing's law (Quaia & Optican, 1998; Raphan,
1997, 1998). In fact, a well-founded theoretical study by Quaia &
Optican (1998) has shown that appropriately placed pulleys (Fig. 8)
and an idealized model of the eye plant (see later section) can both
generate physiologically realistic saccades and implement the halfangle rule without a need to calculate a `neural angular velocity signal'
as proposed by Tweed & Vilis (1987, 1990). This astounding ®nding
comes about because, as elegantly explained by Quaia & Optican
(1998), `correctly' located pulleys within an idealized plant make the
mathematical integral of the saccadic pulse, modelled as time derivative of orientation, approximately equal to the saccadic step which
maintains ocular orientation. Accordingly, the authors proposed a
simple approximation of the saccadic step from the pulse signal, a
hypothesis which at least super®cially seems to solve the problem of
the 3-D velocity-to-position transformation without directly dealing
with the noncommutativity issue.
The original formulation of the functional signi®cance of the muscle
pulleys assumed that they remain ®xed relative to the eye (`passive
pulley hypothesis'). Under this assumption, the brain's work in generating kinematically appropriate saccades would be greatly simpli®ed
(Robinson, 1975; Miller & Robins, 1987; Raphan, 1997, 1998).
However, it soon became clear that for an appropriate approximation
of the saccadic step from the pulse signal, pulleys had to be neurally
controlled by actively changing their position relative to the eyeball for
eccentric gaze directions (Quaia & Optican, 1998). Indeed, magnetic
resonance imaging of rectus muscle paths has shown that the arrangement of the pulleys is consistent with an oculomotor plant which could
implement the eye-position dependence of Listing's law (`active
pulley hypothesis', Demer et al., 2000; Kono et al., 2002). Interestingly, the mere fact that active neural control of the pulleys was
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
Control of 3-D eye orientation
5
Fig. 7. Three alternative schemes for the control of eye orientation in 3-D. (a)
The original hypothesis of Tweed & Vilis (1987), as proposed prior to the
experimental demonstration of muscle `pulleys', while it was generally
accepted that the pulling direction of the muscles remained head-®xed. (b)
The active pulley hypothesis (APH; Demer et al. 1995, 2000; Raphan, 1997,
1998; Quaia & Optican, 1998). (c) The hypothesis of a noncommutative 3-D
premotor neural controller in the presence of an eye plant with pulleys.
Fig. 5. Dependence of horizontal smooth pursuit eye movements on vertical
gaze. From top to bottom, 3-D eye position (Etor, Ever and Ehor) and angular
velocity (Vtor, Vver, Vhor) for up, centre and down gaze during 0.5 Hz ( 38)
pursuit. Fast phases have been eliminated (modi®ed from Angelaki et al., 2003).
necessary dashes the conjecture of simplicity, despite a popular belief
to the contrary. Because the pulleys themselves must be neurally
controlled, the brain must now generate neural commands to control
both the muscles and the pulleys. To date there have been no suggestions about how this control might be achieved, but it is hard to see how
it could be `simple'.
It is important to point out that the modelling conclusions of Quaia
& Optican (1998) were based on the assumption of an idealized plant
(`linear plant model' proposed by Tweed et al., 1994; Tweed, 1997),
where several unrealistic simpli®cations were made, including: (i) the
six muscles had to be reduced to three by treating agonist±antagonist
pairs as single muscles able to apply a positive or negative torque; (ii)
the passive elasticity and viscosity properties of the muscles were
lumped and assumed to be isotropic; (iii) the tension innervation ratio
Fig. 6. The Tweed & Vilis (1987) hypothesis for the neural integration of a 3-D
controller. The 3-D angular velocity vector, V, is multiplied with the ocular
orientation signals, E, represented as a 4-D-vector [see eqns (1) and (2)].
was assumed to be independent of muscle length; (iv) orthogonal
planes of action were assumed for each muscle pair. There is growing
evidence that these gross simpli®cations of the linear plant models can
be misleading. For example, the torques exerted by a muscle, in
addition to having a component proportional to innervation, are also
characterized by a complicated nonlinear length±tension relationship
(Simonsz, 1994). Because of their complexity, simulations of biomechanically realistic models have so far been restricted to static ®xations
(Porrill et al., 2000; Quaia & Optican, 2003). A discrepancy in the
predictions of idealized and biomechanically realistic models has
already been noted for the static control of 3-D eye position (Porrill
et al., 2000; Haslwanter, 2002). Therefore, an extension of biomechanical models to include eye movement dynamics (thus incorporating
the complex properties of muscle force generation; Goldberg et al.,
1998; Miller & Robins, 1992; Goldberg & Shall, 1999; BuÈttner-
Fig. 8. Schematic explanation of how horizontal rectus pulleys can implement
the half-angle rule. If the path of the muscles through the orbit is constrained by
pulleys, the muscular path from the origin to the pulleys is essentially constant
in the orbit, regardless of eye orientation. However, the axis of action of the
muscle changes with eye orientation (modi®ed from Quaia & Optican, 1998).
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
6 D. E. Angelaki and B. J. M. Hess
Ennever & Horn, 2002a,b) is fundamental before modelling studies
can be trusted to provide guidance in the quest for the functional role of
the pulleys.
Despite these uncertainties in interpretation, Demer's functional
imaging results (Demer et al., 2000), combined with the modelling
studies of Quaia & Optican (1998; also Raphan, 1998), have been
interpreted to provide an alternative view to the proposal of Tweed &
Vilis (1987, 1990), whereby a commutative 2-D (horizontal±vertical)
neural controller could be suf®cient to generate accurate saccades in
Listing's plane (Fig. 7b). The commutative controller hypothesis is
attractive because, at a super®cial glance, it would simplify the
premotor processing of eye movements such that the traditional
`Robinsonian' concepts of dynamic premotor processing, well established for the horizontal system, could continue to be used for
controlling gaze, assigning the problems of controlling 3-D eye
orientation to an `intelligent' oculomotor plant. This idea has become
surprisingly popular among many eye movement researchers. However, there are two problems with a quick excitement about this widely
acclaimed simple solution. First, other than the fMRI results of Demer
and colleagues (Demer et al., 2000; Kono et al., 2002) there is little
direct evidence to date let alone a straightforward experimental proof
of the hypothesis regarding the functional role of rectus pulleys. The
second problem with overinterpreting the implications of these results
lies on the fact that although muscle pulleys appear to simplify the task
for head-®xed saccades, this simpli®cation cannot be easily generalized to either head movements (e.g. the VOR) or head-free gaze shifts.
In fact, the hypothesized action of the pulleys neither eliminates the
necessity for a 3-D controller nor proves the existence of a 2-D neural
controller. This will become clearer in the following paragraphs.
Vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR)
Whereas the proposed pulley arrangement could implement the halfangle rule of Listing's law for pursuit and saccades, their possible
function during the RVOR is much less clear. Speci®cally, the RVOR
does not follow Listing's law and the half-angle rule (Angelaki et al.,
2003; Crawford & Vilis, 1991; Misslisch et al., 1994; Misslisch &
Hess, 2000). If the extraocular muscle pulleys implement the halfangle rule by imposing an eye-position-dependent pulling direction for
the rectus muscles, how is this property `undone' during the RVOR? It
was originally proposed that the pulleys might advance and retract
along their muscle paths, adopting one arrangement for Listing's law
and another for the RVOR (Demer et al., 2000; Thurtell et al., 1999,
2000). This theory, however, was recently shown to be incorrect, as the
required retraction to explain the RVOR would have to be so large as to
be nonphysiological. Furthermore, the proposed retraction, no matter
how large, could not explain the full pattern of rotation axes seen in the
RVOR (Misslisch & Tweed, 2001).
The fact that the active pulley hypothesis, at least in its originally
proposed form, is incorrect has gained further support by a recent study
where the RVOR was elicited together with the translational VOR
(TVOR; Angelaki et al., 2003). Unlike the RVOR, the TVOR follows a
3-D kinematic behaviour which is more similar to visually guided,
fovea-related eye movements such as pursuit (Angelaki et al., 2000,
2003). Contrary to the RVOR where peripheral image stability is
functionally important, the TVOR, like pursuit and saccades, seeks to
stabilize images on the fovea by disregarding global image features
seen by the whole retina (Angelaki et al., 2003). How the rotational and
translational VORs combine was recently investigated during eccentric
yaw rotations. The combined VOR did not follow a ®xed eye-position
dependence which would be consistent with the postulated mechanical
constraints imposed by extraocular muscle pulleys. Instead, a variable
eye-position-dependent torsion was observed, which was as much as
10 larger than what would be expected based on extraocular muscle
pulleys. In addition, eye velocity often tilted opposite to the direction
of gaze, an observation which is again inconsistent with a simple
mechanical origin of 3-D ocular kinematics. Quantitative analyses
revealed that the combined VOR behaved as if the eye-positiondependent torsion was computed separately for the RVOR and the
TVOR components, implying a neural origin upstream of the site of
RVOR±TVOR convergence (thus excluding a purely mechanical
solution).
Thus, although attractive and convenient for head-®xed saccades, the
active pulley retraction hypothesis could not account for behavioural
observations regarding the 3-D properties of the VOR. These ®ndings
prompted the next twist in a series of continuing modi®cations of the
original pulley hypothesis.
Revised active pulley hypothesis for ocular mechanics
Indeed, the way in which the `active pulley hypothesis' deals with the
RVOR has recently been revised. Demer (2002) has provided an
alternative hypothesis as to what happens during the RVOR which
might in fact be the beginning of a compromise to the often heated
controversy of the past decade. Demer now proposes that the violation
of Listing's law during the RVOR might be mediated by the oblique
extraocular muscles whose velocity axes are actively maintained
orthogonal to the Listing's velocity axes of the rectus muscles. This
new proposal was based on experimental ®ndings during ocular
convergence and static tilt. Speci®cally, a temporal rotation of Listing's plane is observed with convergence (Mok et al., 1992; Van Rijn &
Van den Berg, 1993; Minken & van Gisbergen, 1994). It was found
that, during ocular convergence, rectus pulleys rotated in the orbit but
remained ®xed relative to the pulling direction of the obliques (Demer
et al., 2003). A similar result was observed for the shift in Listing's
plane during static ocular counterrolling (Demer & Clark, 2003).
According to this revised pulley hypothesis, `appropriate' neural
signals during convergence and counterrolling (and presumably also
RVOR) activate the oblique muscles, causing not only the eye to rotate
torsionally but also to simultaneously rotate the rectus pulleys as well.
As a result, the rectus muscle pulling directions would remain ®xed
relative to the obliques but change relative to the head. Thus, in
contrast to its promised simplicity when it was originally conceived
(Demer et al., 1995, 2000; Raphan, 1997, 1998), the hypothesized role
of the pulleys in 3-D eye movement control becomes increasingly
complex.
This revised hypothesis could account nicely for the alterations in
Listing's plane orientation under static conditions, e.g. the rotation or
translation of Listing's plane during static head tilts and ocular
convergence (Haslwanter et al., 1992; Mok et al., 1992; van Rijn &
van den Berg, 1993; Minken & van Gisbergen, 1994). It is also in line
with the shift in the preferred direction of burst neurons during
saccades in static roll head positions (Scherberger et al., 2001).
However, what happens during the RVOR remains purely speculative
at present. As functional imaging cannot provide information about the
movement of the eyes during the RVOR, this hypothesis can only be
addressed with complementary electrophysiological experiments of
motoneuron discharge rates. Indeed, a straightforward experiment
which would directly address the active pulley hypothesis (APH)
would be to quantitatively investigate if motoneuron ®ring rates
correlate best with angular velocity (V) or the derivative of eye
orientation (EÇ). As implied by the half-angle rule, the larger the
eye position eccentricity relative to primary position the larger the
difference between EÇ and V. Unfortunately, the single 3-D study of
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
Control of 3-D eye orientation
motoneuron ®ring rates only dealt with static ®xations (Suzuki et al.,
1999). The APH would predict that the dynamic component in
motoneuron ®ring rates would best correlate with EÇ rather than V
during all eye movements (VOR, saccades and pursuit; Fig. 7b and c).
For example, the burst activity of motoneurons during saccades should
not change in relation to the eye-position-dependent change in angular
eye velocity associated with different eye eccentricities. Alternatively,
if it were found that motoneuron ®ring rates best correlate with V
rather than EÇ (Fig. 7a), the validity of the APH would become questionable. Such studies of motoneuron ®ring rates during changes in eye
position brought about during saccades, pursuit and the VOR have yet
to be performed.
Commutativity vs. noncommutativity in oculomotor
control: where does the debate lie?
The discussions about the implications of extraocular muscle pulleys
often gets mixed up with the controversy about commutativity or
noncommutativity in the premotor control of eye movements. A
`commutative (2-D) neural controller' implies that the premotor neural
commands for a horizontal eye movement are independent of vertical
eye position and vice versa. For example, when considering horizontal
saccades, the number of spikes in a burst should be the same when the
saccade is executed from primary or eccentric vertical eye positions
(neural ®ring rate modulation should not depend on eye position).
Mathematically, the debate between a noncommutative vs. a commutative neural controller is equivalent to the question of whether
premotor neurons encode the angular velocity (V) or the rate of
change of eye position (EÇ) (Fig. 7). For eye movements in Listing's
plane, V must be an eye-position-dependent 3-D vector (i.e. with a
nonzero torsional component), whereas EÇ is 2-D. However, the
opposite is true for the RVOR.
The expected differences between neural coding of EÇ and V for
different eye movements are summarized in Table 1. For eye movements in Listing's plane (pursuit, saccades and the TVOR), EÇ coding
implies that neural ®ring rates exhibit no eye-position dependence (`no
EPD' in Table 1) and can be best described by a 2-D (horizontal±
vertical) model. In contrast, a neural sensitivity to V should be best
described with a 3-D model and a clear eye position-dependence of
®ring rates (`EPD' in Table 1). For the RVOR which does not follow
Listing's law, the reverse would be true. Assuming rotation axes in
Listing's plane (yaw and pitch), neurons encoding V should exhibit
neural ®ring rate modulations which are independent of eye position
and best described by a 2-D model. In contrast, EÇ-coding would expect
a clear eye-position dependence in the ®ring rate modulation of the
cell, as well as a better ®t with a 3-D model (Smith & Crawford, 1998).
The recently proposed APH models (Quaia & Optican, 1998;
Raphan, 1998) have claimed that, simply because motoneurons are
hypothesized to encode EÇ, a commutative controller (using, according
to Raphan, 1998, only a horizontal±vertical but no torsional neural
signal) is automatically implied for premotor processing (Fig. 7b).
Table 1. The expected differences between EÇ and V for different eye
movements
Pursuit
Saccades
TVOR
RVOR (yaw, pitch)
EPD, eye-position dependence.
Derivative of
eye position, EÇ
Angular
velocity, V
2-D,
2-D,
2-D,
3-D,
3-D,
3-D,
3-D,
2-D,
no EPD
no EPD
no EPD
EPD
EPD
EPD
EPD
no EPD
7
However, contrary to this widely held opinion, there is growing
evidence that a noncommutative neural controller is still necessary,
despite the existence of appropriately placed pulleys (Fig. 7c). In fact,
several studies supporting the need for a 3-D neural controller have
incorporated muscle pulleys in their models (Smith & Crawford, 1998;
Tweed et al., 1999). This is so because premotor cells do not
necessarily have to encode EÇ, even though motoneurons might do
so according to the APH. There are multiple ®ndings arguing for the
existence of a 3-D premotor neural controller.
(i) Different eye movements exhibit different 3-D kinematics.
Speci®cally, as summarized above, Listing's law is relaxed or abandoned during RVOR and optokinetic responses (Crawford & Vilis,
1991; Fetter et al., 1992; Misslisch et al., 1994). Furthermore, during
eccentric rotations, experimental evidence suggests that the eye-position-dependent torsion is neurally computed prior to the rotational±
translational VOR signal convergence (Angelaki, 2003). In addition,
Listing's planes are modi®ed during convergence and static head tilt
(Haslwanter et al., 1991; Mok et al., 1992; van Rijn & van den Berg,
1993; Minken & van Gisbergen, 1994). The revised APH, in fact,
proposing that oblique muscle activation is necessary to generate static
ocular counterrolling and a change in torsion during convergence
(Demer, 2002; Demer & Clark, 2003), would require a 3-D premotor
neural controller (otherwise, how would the appropriate torsional
signal be generated?). However, because the revised APH remains
purely qualitative at present, this fact has not as yet been explored.
(ii) The simple and elegant experiments of Tweed et al. (1999; see
also Tweed, 1997) showed that the vector integration approach
(Raphan, 1997, 1998; Quaia & Optican, 1998) and, consequently,
oculomotor models which use EÇ instead of angular velocity V to
simplify the integration step, do not reproduce the noncommutative
behaviour of the RVOR. Thus, although pulleys might minimize the
pulse±step mismatch which occurs by integration of the time derivative
of ocular orientation EÇ instead of angular velocity V, they do not make
a commutative RVOR (Tweed et al., 1999).
(iii) During head-free gaze shifts, slow phase movements are
routinely preceded by a saccade, which normally drives the eyes
out of Listing's plane in an anticipatory fashion, such that it ends
up in Listing's plane only after the whole movement is complete
(Crawford & Vilis, 1991; Crawford & Guitton, 1997; Tweed, 1997).
The fact that the saccade drives eye position out of Listing's plane in an
anticipation of the whole gaze shift cannot be explained by a 2-D
neural controller and an eye plant with pulleys.
(iv) Finally, other studies have also convincingly shown that the
visuomotor transformations from retinal information into kinematically correct oculomotor signals require accurate neural control over
all degrees of freedom of ocular orientation (Crawford & Guitton,
1997; Klier & Crawford, 1998).
Thus, in summary, the often heated argument about commutativity
vs. noncommutativity in the control of eye movements is not about
pulleys (as often erroneously implied) but about whether the central
nervous system uses a 2-D (horizontal±vertical) or a 3-D (horizontal±
vertical±torsional) neural controller for eye movements. There is a
tendency to assume that the active pulley hypothesis which states that
the phasic component of motoneuron discharge encodes the derivative
of eye position EÇ (and not angular velocity V), alleviates the need for a
premotor coding of V (Fig. 7b) (Demer et al., 1995, 2000; Raphan,
1997, 1998). However, there is ample evidence which supports an
alternative hypothesis, namely that, irrespective of the existence and
function of muscle pulleys, premotor processing and the underlying
sensorimotor transformations rely on a 3-D neural controller
(Haslwanter, 1995; Crawford, 1998; Klier & Crawford, 1998; Smith
& Crawford, 1998; Tweed et al., 1999; Klier et al., 2001). Such
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
8 D. E. Angelaki and B. J. M. Hess
evidence points to the existence of a 3-D neural controller in the
premotor circuitry, even though angular velocity (V) signals might be
transformed downstream into eye-orientation-derivative (EÇ) signals at
the level of motoneurons, in order to control an eye plant with pulleys
(Fig. 7c). Unfortunately, experiments to date have mainly focused on
theoretical studies and behavioural input±output relationships, where
arguments can provide only indirect evidence towards the existence of
a 3-D premotor neural controller. Directly probing and quantitatively
characterizing the properties of different premotor groups of neurons,
as well as motoneurons (see above) is necessary. Such experiments are
as critical in understanding the control of 3-D eye orientation as the
neurophysiological studies in the 1970s and 80s have been for the
pioneering discoveries regarding the neural control of horizontal and
vertical eye movements.
Search in neural activities for a 3-D neural controller
for saccades and pursuit
The existence of a 2-D or 3-D premotor neural controller can only be
directly investigated by examining whether premotor neurons encode
the derivative of eye position, EÇ, or angular velocity, V [eqn (1)]. As
explained in more detail in previous sections, although these two
vectors, EÇ and V, are indistinguishable in the primary position, their
amplitudes and directions deviate signi®cantly the larger the eye
eccentricity from primary position. Thus, one must compare neural
®ring rates at different initial eye positions and quantitatively search
for differences in cell responsiveness. The idea of searching for
neurophysiological evidence in order to distinguish between a 2-D
(commutative) or 3-D (noncommutative) neural controller has long
been appreciated but, unfortunately, we still do not yet have many
answers. The last several years of Volker Henn's research efforts,
before his untimely death in the middle nineties, were devoted to
addressing these questions. His efforts focused on the premotor coding
of saccadic eye movements (Hepp et al., 1993, 1999; van Opstal et al.,
1991, 1996; Scherberger et al., 2001). Henn and colleagues have
clearly demonstrated that the collicular motor map is 2-D and conjectured that the reticular burst generators encode EÇ without excluding
possible encoding of V by combining EÇ with an eye position signal
(Hepp et al., 1993; Hepp et al., 1995).
Using spontaneous saccades (as in the experiments of Henn and
colleagues), however, might not be the best protocol to identify small
differences between 3-D angular velocity and the 2-D derivative of eye
position in burst activities (Hepp et al., 1999; Scherberger et al., 2001).
In fact, small changes in neural ®ring rates related to 3-D signals might
be more easily discernible during pursuit±VOR than during saccadic
eye movements because the phasic component can be sustained for
longer periods to give a better signal-to-noise ratio (Smith & Crawford,
1998). Although typically discussed for saccades, these issues had
never until very recently been addressed for smooth pursuit eye
movements. The same controversies outlined above for saccades also
apply to pursuit eye movements. Speci®cally, similar to saccades,
premotor pursuit neural activities could be restricted to a coding of the
2-D (horizontal±vertical) derivative of eye orientation (EÇ) rather than
3-D angular eye velocity (V). Alternatively, one could speculate that 3D coding of pursuit velocity might be advantageous, not only for the
reasons mentioned above for saccades, but also if pursuit±VOR
interactions were to share a common coordinate system (as semicircular canal afferents encode angular velocity, V). The premotor coding
for pursuit would then be similar to the common coordinate system
used for optokinetic±VOR convergence, as has been shown to exist in
birds and rabbits (Graf et al., 1988; Tan et al., 1993; Wylie & Frost,
1993; Van der Steen et al., 1994). Indeed, a recent study in rhesus
monkeys has provided direct evidence that eye movement neurons in
the rostral vestibular nuclei exhibit signi®cant changes in their ®ring
rates which parallels the monotonic increase in torsional eye velocity
as a function of eye position during smooth pursuit (Angelaki &
Dickman, 2003). In fact, multiple linear regression analyses of cell
responsiveness during pursuit at multiple eye orientations revealed that
cell ®ring rates encode the eye-position-dependent torsional component of pursuit eye velocity. These observations would suggest that at
least some neural ®ring rates are more closely related to the 3-D
angular velocity, V, than to the eye-position-independent 2-D derivative of eye position, EÇ. Thus, in contrast to previous reports on the
saccadic premotor pathways (van Opstal et al., 1991, 1996; Hepp et al.,
1993, 1995, 1999; Scherberger et al., 2001), more direct evidence
exists for a 3-D neural controller in the premotor processing of pursuit
eye movements.
Neural coding during the VOR
Compared to pursuit and saccades, consideration of these issues for the
RVOR differs in two important aspects. First, the RVOR does not
follow Listing's law. This is a trivial statement when the head's
velocity axis has a torsional component (as the RVOR will generate
an eye velocity equal and opposite to head velocity). However, even
head rotation axes in Listing's plane (i.e. pitch±yaw) will cause
torsional violations of Listing's law as a function of initial eye position
(Crawford & Vilis, 1991). This is so because RVOR slow phase
velocity axes do not tilt out of Listing's plane as a function of eye
position (as required to keep eye positions in Listing's plane; Figs 3
and 5), but they tend to remain aligned with the head velocity axes in
order to minimize image slip on the peripheral retina (Misslisch et al.,
1994; Angelaki et al., 2003). The second difference is even more
important. In contrast to visually driven pursuit and saccades whose
sensory inputs are 2-D (retinal) signals and where the hypothesis of EÇ
premotor coding is possible (although it requires experimental testing),
the sensory signals driving the RVOR represent 3-D angular velocity.
Thus, it is physically impossible for the canal activity vector to encode
eye orientation derivatives (Tweed, 1997). Because the RVOR encodes
V, at least at the sensory side, a V-to-EÇ transformation is implied in
order to be consistent with an eye plant with pulleys which requires an
`EÇ' input (Fig. 7b and c). As seen from eqns (1) and (2), this
transformation requires a multiplication (see also Fig. 6). Whether
these velocity signals are transformed into orientation velocity, which
would facilitate integration to yield ocular orientation in a network
shared by saccadic signals, is a completely open question (see Tweed,
1997). The need for this multiplication step for the V-to-EÇ transformation for the RVOR, despite the existence of an eye plant with
pulleys, represents one of the arguments which has motivated several
investigators to point out that the active pulley hypothesis does not
solve the problem of noncommutativity (Tweed, 1997; Smith &
Crawford, 1998; Tweed et al., 1999). Because no studies have systematically examined the 3-D properties of either premotor cells or
motoneurons during rotation and compared these activities with those
during pursuit and saccades, these issues have yet to be explored.
Conclusions
In summary, much experimental effort has been devoted in recent years
in order to understand the neural vs. mechanical aspects for the control
of 3-D eye orientation and the associated kinematic behaviours. The
controversies about 3-D eye movements during the past decade focus
on the question of whether premotor neurons encode the derivative of
eye position, EÇ, or the angular velocity, V [eqn (1)]. Arguments have
been put forward for both alternatives. Although there is a tendency to
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
Control of 3-D eye orientation
assume that the active pulley hypothesis, which states that the phasic
component of motoneuron discharge rate encodes the derivative of eye
position, EÇ, (and not angular velocity, V), alleviates the need for a
premotor coding of V (Demer et al., 1995, 2000; Raphan, 1997, 1998),
multiple evidence exists to show otherwise. Under dynamic conditions
(e.g. RVOR or combined eye±head movements), torsional eye movements are actively controlled, a process which cannot be explained by a
horizontal±vertical premotor neural control system (Klier & Crawford,
1998; Tweed et al., 1998, 1999). Thus, irrespectively of muscle pulleys
and their role in providing an eye-position-dependent extraocular
muscle pulling direction, the premotor processing of the vestibuloocular re¯ex, head-free gaze shifts and the underlying sensorimotor
transformations require a 3-D neural controller (Haslwanter, 1995;
Crawford, 1998; Klier & Crawford, 1998; Smith & Crawford, 1998;
Tweed et al., 1999; Klier et al., 2001). Most studies to date have
primarily focused on behavioural and modelling arguments with very
little effort being devoted to the understanding of the neural response
properties of motoneurons. Thus, future work must focus heavily on
the characterization of neural activities during 3-D eye movements and
the determination of whether the ®ring rates of motoneurons (and
different groups of premotor neurons) correlate better with the derivative of eye position, EÇ, or angular velocity, V. Similarly to the great
advances of a combined modelling and neurophysiological approach
for understanding the dynamic aspects for the neural control of
horizontal and vertical eye movements, such a combined approach
is even more critical for appreciating and understanding the biological
aspects of the often complicated 3-D spatial organization of motor
behaviours.
Acknowledgements
Supported by NIH (EY12814) and Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF
31-57086.99).
Abbreviations
2-D, two dimensions/-dimensional; 3-D, three dimensions/-dimensional; APH,
active pulley hypothesis; RVOR, rotational vestibulo-ocular re¯ex; TVOR,
translational vestibulo-ocular re¯ex; VOR, vestibulo-ocular re¯ex.
References
Angelaki, D.E. (2003) Three-dimensional ocular kinematics during combined
rotational and translational motion: evidence for functional rather than
mechanical constraints. J. Neurophysiol., 89, 2685±2696.
Angelaki, D.E. & Dickman, J.D. (2003) Premotor neurons encode torsional eye
velocity during smooth pursuit eye movements. J. Neurosci., 23, 2971±2979.
Angelaki, D.E., McHenry, M.Q. & Hess, B.J.M. (2000) Primate translational
vestibulo-ocular re¯exes. I. High frequency dynamics and three-dimensional
properties during lateral motion. J. Neurophysiol., 83, 1637±1647.
Angelaki, D.E., Zhou, H.H. & Wei, M. (2003) Foveal vs. full-®eld visual
stabilization strategies for translational and rotational head movements. J.
Neurosci., 23, 1104±1108.
BuÈttner-Ennever, J.A. & Horn (2002b) The neuroanatomical basis of oculomotor disorders: the dual motor control of extraocular muscles and its
possible role in proprioception. Curr. Opin. Neurol., 15, 35±43.
BuÈttner-Ennever, J.A. & Horn, A.K.E. (2002a) Oculomotor system: a dual
innervation of the eye muscles from the abducens, trochlear, and oculomotor
nuclei. Mov. Disord., 17, S2±S3.
Cannon, S.C. & Robinson, D.A. (1987) Loss of the neural integrator of the
oculomotor system from brain stem lesions in monkey. J. Neurophysiol., 57,
1383±1409.
Crawford, J.D. (1998) Listing's Law: what's all the hubbub? In Harris, L.R. &
Jenkin, M. (Eds), Vision and Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 124±150.
Crawford, J.D. & Guitton, D. (1997) Visual-motor transformations required
for accurate and kinematically correct saccades. J. Neurophysiol., 78,
1447±1467.
9
Crawford, J.D. & Vilis, T. (1991) Axes of rotation and Listing's law during
rotations of the head. J. Neurophysiol., 65, 407±423.
Cullen, K.E., Galiana, H.L. & Sylvestre, P.A. (2000) Comparing extraocular
motoneuron discharges during head-restrained saccades and head-unrestrained gaze shifts. J. Neurophysiol., 83, 630±637.
Cullen, K.E. & Guitton, D. (1997) Analysis of primate IBN spike trains using
system identi®cation techniques. I. Relationship to eye movement dynamics
during head-®xed saccades. J. Neurophysiol., 78, 3259±3282.
De la Cruz, R.R., Escudero, M. & Delgado-Garcia, J.M. (1989) Behaviour
of medial rectus motoneurons in the alert cat. European J. Neurosci., 1,
288±295.
Delgado-Garcia, J.M., Del Pozo, F. & Baker, R. (1986) Behavior of neurons
in the abducens nucleus of the alert cat. I. Motoneurons. Neuroscience, 17,
929±952.
Demer, J.L. (2002) The orbital pulley system: a revolution in concepts of orbital
anatomy. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 956, 17±32.
Demer, J.L. & Clark, R.A. (2003) Functional anatomy of extraocular muscles
(EOMS) during static torsional vestibulo-ocular re¯ex (VOR) revealed by
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Program No 391.17. 2003 Abstract
Viewer and Itinerary Planner, Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience,
Online.
Demer, J.L., Kono, R. & Wright, W. (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of
human extraocular muscles in convergence. J. Neurophysiol., 89, 2072±
2085.
Demer, J.L., Miller, J.M., Poukens, V., Vinters, H.V. & Glasgow, B.J. (1995)
Evidence for ®bromuscular pulleys of the recti extraocular muscles. Invest.
Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 36, 1125±1136.
Demer, J.L., Oh, S.Y. & Poukens, V. (2000) Evidence for active control of rectus
extraocular muscle pulleys. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 41, 1280±1290.
Ferman, L., Collewijn, H. & Van Den Berg, A.V. (1987) A direct test of Listing's
Law. I. Human ocular torsion measured in static tertiary positions. Vision
Res., 27, 929±938.
Fetter, M., Tweed, D., Misslisch, H., Fischer, D. & Koenig, E. (1992) Mulitdimensional descriptions of the optokinetic and vestibuloocular re¯exes. Ann.
NY Acad. Sci., 656, 841±842.
Fuchs, A.F., Kaneko, C.R. & Scudder, C.A. (1985) Brainstem control of
saccadic eye movements. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 8, 307±337.
Fuchs, A.F. & Luschei, E.S. (1970) Firing patterns of abducens neurons of alert
monkeys in relationship to horizontal eye movement. J. Neurophysiol., 33,
382±392.
Fuchs, A.F. & Luschei, E.S. (1971) The activity of single trochlear nerve ®bers
during eye movements in the alert monkey. Exp. Brain Res., 13, 78±89.
Fuchs, A.F., Scudder, C.A. & Kaneko, C.R.S. (1988) Discharge patterns and
recruitment order of identi®ed motoneurons and internuclear neurons in the
monkey abducens nucleus. J. Neurophysiol., 60, 1874±1895.
Goldberg, S.J., Meredith, M.A. & Shall, M.S. (1998) Extraocular motor unit and
whole-muscle responses in the lateral rectus muscle of the squirrel monkey.
J. Neurosci., 18, 10629±10639.
Goldberg, S.J. & Shall, M.S. (1999) Motor units of extraocular muscles: Recent
®ndings. Prog. Brain Res., 123, 221±232.
Goldstein, H. (1980) Classical Mechanics. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley
Co.
Graf, W., Simpson, J.I. & Leonard, C.S. (1988) Spatial organization of visual
messages of the rabbit's cerebellar ¯occulus. II. Complex and simple spike
responses of Purkinje cells. J. Neurophysiol., 60, 2091±2121.
Haslwanter, T. (1995) Mathematics of three-dimensional eye rotations. Vision
Res., 35, 1727±1739.
Haslwanter, T. (2002) Mechanics of eye movement: implications of the `orbital
revolution.'. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 956, 33±41.
Haslwanter, T., Straumann, D., Hepp, K., Hess, B.J.M. & Henn, V. (1991)
Smooth pursuit eye movements obey Listing's Law in the monkey. Exp.
Brain Res., 87, 470±472.
Haslwanter, T., Straumann, D., Hess, B.J. & Henn, V. (1992) Static roll and
pitch in the monkey: shift and rotation of Listing's plane. Vision Res., 32,
1341±1348.
Haustein, W. (1989) Considerations on Listing's Law and the primary position
by means of a matrix description of eye position control. Biol. Cybern., 60,
411±420.
von Helmholtz, H. (1867) Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. Hamburg:
Voss.
Henn, V., Buttner-Ennever, J.A. & Hepp, K. (1982) The primate oculomotor
system. Human Neurobiol., 1, 77±85.
Henn, V. & Cohen, B. (1973) Quantitative analysis of activity in eye muscle
motoneurons during saccadic eye movement and positions of ®xation.
J. Neurophysiol., 36, 115±126.
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10
10 D. E. Angelaki and B. J. M. Hess
Hepp, K., Cabungcal, J.H., DuÈrsteler, M., Hess, B.J., Scherberger, H., Straumann, D., Suzuki, Y., Van Opstal, J. & Henn, V. (1999) 3D structure of the
reticular saccade generator. Soc. Neurosci. Abstract., 25, 661.6.
Hepp, K. & Henn, V. (1985) Iso-frequency curves of oculomotor neurons in the
rhesus monkey. Vision Res., 25, 493±499.
Hepp, K., Suzuki, Y., Straumann, D. & Hess, B.J.M. (1995) On the 3-dimensional rapid eye movement generator in the monkey. In: Information
Processing Underlying Gaze Control. Delgado-Garcia, J.M., Godeaux,
E. & Vidal, P.P.Oxford). Pergamon Press, p. 65±74.
Hepp, K., Van Opstal, A.J., Straumann, D., Hess, B.J. & Henn, V. (1993)
Monkey superior colliculus represents rapid eye movements in a twodimensional motor map. J. Neurophysiol., 69, 965±979.
Hess, B.J.M. & Angelaki, D.E. (1997a) Kinematic principles of primate
rotational vestibulo-ocular re¯ex. I. Spatial organization of fast phase
velocity axes. J. Neurophysiol., 78, 2193±2202.
Hess, B.J.M. & Angelaki, D.E. (1997b) Kinematic principles of primate
rotational vestibulo-ocular re¯ex. II. Gravity-dependent modulation of primary eye position. J. Neurophysiol., 78, 2203±2216.
Hess, B.J.M. & Angelaki, D.E. (2003) Gravity modulates Listing's plane orientation during both pursuit and saccades. J. Neurophysiol., 90, 1340±1345.
Klier, E.M. & Crawford, J.D. (1998) Human oculomotor system accounts for 3D eye orientation in the visual-motor transformation for saccades. J. Neurophysiol., 80, 2274±2294.
Klier, E.M., Wang, H. & Crawford, J.D. (2001) The superior colliculus encodes
gaze commands in retinal coordinates. Nat. Neurosci., 4, 627±632.
Kono, R., Clark, R.A. & Demer, J.L. (2002) Acive pulleys: magnetic resonance
imaging of rectus muscle paths in tertiary gazes. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 43,
2179±2188.
Miller, J.M. (1989) Functional anatomy of normal human rectus muscles. Vision
Res., 29, 223±240.
Miller, J.M., Demer, J.L. & Rosenbaum, A.L. (1993) Effect of transposition
surgery on rectus muscle paths by magnetic resonance imaging. Ophthalmology, 100, 475±487.
Miller, J.M. & Robins, D. (1987) Extraocular muscle sideslip and orbital
geometry in monkeys. Vision Res., 27, 381±392.
Miller, J.M. & Robins, D. (1992) Extraocular muscle forces in alert monkey.
Vision Res., 32, 1099±1113.
Minken, A.W. & Van Gisbergen, J.A. (1994) A three-dimensional analysis of
vergence movements at various levels of elevation. Exp. Brain Res., 101,
331±345.
Misslisch, H. & Hess, B.J. (2000) Three-dimensional vestibuloocular re¯ex of
the monkey: optimal retinal image-stabilization versus listing's law.
J. Neurophysiol., 83, 3264±3276.
Misslisch, H. & Tweed, D. (2001) Neural and mechanical factors in eye control.
J. Neurophysiol., 86, 1877±1883.
Misslisch, H., Tweed, D., Fetter, M., Sievering, D. & Koenig, E. (1994)
Rotational kinematics of the human vestibuloocular re¯ex. III. Listing's
Law. J. Neurophysiol., 72, 2490±2502.
Mok, D., Ro, A., Cadera, W., Crawford, J.D. & Vilis, T. (1992) Rotation of
Listing's plane during vergence. Vision Res., 32, 2055±2064.
Pola, J. & Robinson, D.A. (1978) Oculomotor signals in medial longitudinal
fasciculus of the monkey. J. Neurophysiol., 41, 245±259.
Porrill, J., Warren, P.A. & Dean, P. (2000) A simple control law generates
Listing's positions in a detailed model of the extraocular muscle system.
Vision Res., 40, 3743±3758.
Quaia, C. & Optican, L.M. (1998) Commutative saccadic generator is suf®cient
to control a 3-D ocular plant with pulleys. J. Neurophysiol., 79, 3197±3215.
Quaia, C. & Optican, L.M. (2003) Dynamic eye plant models and the control of
eye movements. Strabismus, 11, 17±31.
Raphan, T. (1997) Modeling control of eye orientation in three dimensions. In:
Three Dimensional Kinematics of Eye, Head, and Limb MovementsFetter,
M., Haslwanter, H., Misslisch, H. & Tweed, D.Amsterdam: Harwood.).
Academic Publishers, p. 359±374.
Raphan, T. (1998) Modeling control of eye orientation in three dimensions. I.
Role of muscle pulleys in determining saccadic trajectory. J. Neurophysiol.,
79, 2653±2667.
Robinson, D.A. (1968) Eye movement control in primates. The oculomotor
system contains specialized subsystems for acquiring and tracking visual
targets. Science, 161, 1219±1224.
Robinson, D.A. (1970) Oculomotor Unit Behavior in the Monkey. J. Neurophysiol., 33, 393±403.
Robinson, D.A. (1975) A quantitative analysis of extraocular muscle cooperation and squint. Invest. Ophthalmol., 14, 801±825.
Robinson, D.A. (1981) The use of control systems analysis in the neurophysiology of eye movements. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 4, 463±503.
Sappey, P.C. (2001) The motor muscles of the eyeball [translation from the
French] 1888. Strabismus, 9, 243±253.
Scherberger, H., Cabungcal, J.-H., Hepp, K., Suzuki, Y., Straumann, D. & Henn,
V. (2001) Ocular counterroll modulates the preferred direction of saccaderelated pontine burst neurons in the monkey. J. Neurophysiol., 86, 935±949.
Schnabolk, C. & Raphan. T. (1994) Modeling three-dimensional velocity-toposition transformation in oculomotor control. J. Neurophysiol., 71, 623±638.
Schreiber, K., Crawford, J.D., Fetter, M. & Tweed, D. (2001) The motor side of
depth vision. Nature, 410, 819±822.
Scudder, C.A. & Fuchs, A.F. (1992) Physiological and behavioral identi®cation
of vestibular nucleus neurons mediating the horizontal vestibuloocular re¯ex
in trained rhesus monkeys. J. Neurophysiol., 86, 244±264.
Simonsz, H.J. (1994) Force-length recording of eye muscles during localanesthesia surgery in 32 strabismus patients. Strabismus, 4, 197±218.
Simonsz, H.J. (2001) The ®rst description of the eye muscle pulleys by Philibert
C. Sappey (1888). Strabismus, 9, 239±241.
Skavenski, A.A. & Robinson, D.A. (1973) Role of abducens neurons in
vestibuloocular re¯ex. J. Neurophysiol., 36, 724±738.
Smith, M.A. & Crawford, J.D. (1998) Neural control of rotational kinematics
within realistic vestibuloocular coordinate systems. J. Neurophysiol., 80,
2295±2315.
Suzuki, Y., Straumann, D., Simpson, J.I., Hepp, K., Hess, B.J. & Henn, V.
(1999) Three-dimensional extraocular motoneuron innervation in the rhesus
monkey. I: Muscle rotation axes and on-directions during ®xation. Exp. Brain
Res., 126, 187±199.
Sylvestre, P.A. & Cullen, K.E. (1999) Quantitative analysis of abducens neuron
discharge dynamics during saccadic and slow eye movements. J. Neurophysiol., 82, 2612±2632.
Tan, H.S., Van Der Steen, J., Simpson, J.I. & Collewijn, H. (1993) Threedimensional organization of optokinetic responses in the rabbit. J. Neurophysiol., 69, 303±317.
Thurtell, M.J., Black, R.A., Halmagyi, G.M., Curthoys, I.S. & Aw, S.T. (1999)
Vertical eye position-dependence of the human vestibuloocular re¯ex during
passive and active yaw head rotations. J. Neurophysiol., 81, 2415±2428.
Thurtell, M.J., Kunin, M. & Raphan, T. (2000) Role of muscle pulleys in
producing eye position-dependence in the angular vestibuloocular re¯ex: a
model-based study. J. Neurophysiol., 84, 639±650.
Tomlinson, R.D. & Robinson, D.A. (1984) Signals in vestibular nucleus
mediating vertical eye movements in the monkey. J. Neurophysiol., 51,
1121±1135.
Tweed, D. (1997) Velocity-to-position transformation in the VOR and the
saccadic system. In: Three-Dimensional Kinematics of Eye, Head, and Limb
MovementsFetter, M., Haslwanter, T., Misslich, H. & Tweed, D.The
Netherlands: Harwood Academic) p. 375±386.
Tweed, D., Fetter, M., Andreadaki, S., Koenig, E. & Dichgans, J. (1992) Threedimensional properties of human pursuit eye movements. Vision Res., 32,
1225±1238.
Tweed, D., Haslwanter, T., Happe, V. & Fetter, M. (1998) Optimizing gaze
control in three dimensions. Science, 281, 1363±1366.
Tweed, D., Haslwanter, T., Happe, V. & Fetter, M. (1999) Non-commutativity in
the brain. Nature, 399, 261±263.
Tweed, D., Misslich, H. & Fetter, M. (1994) Testing models of the oculomotor
velocity-to-position transformation. J. Neurophysiol., 72, 1425±1429.
Tweed, D. & Vilis, T. (1987) Implications of rotational kinematics for the
oculomotor system in three dimensions. J. Neurophysiol., 58, 832±849.
Tweed, D. & Vilis, T. (1990) Geometric relations of eye position and velocity
vectors during saccades. Vision Res., 30, 111±127.
Van der Steen, J., Simpson, J.I. & Tan, J. (1994) Functional and anatomic
organization of three-dimensional eye movements in rabbit cerebellar ¯occulus. J. Neurophysiol., 72, 31±46.
Van Gisbergen, J.A., Robinson, D.A. & Gielen, S. (1981) A quantitative
analysis of generation of saccadic eye movements by burst neurons. J.
Neurophysiol., 45, 417±442.
Van Opstal, A.J., Hepp, K., Hess, B.J., Straumann, D. & Henn, V. (1991) Tworather than three-dimensional representation of saccades in monkey superior
colliculus. Science, 252, 1313±1315.
Van Opstal, A.J., Hepp, K., Suzuki, Y. & Henn, V. (1996) Role of the monkey
nucleus reticularis tegmenti pontis in the stabilization of Listing's plane. J.
Neurosci., 16, 7248±7296.
Van Rijn, L.J. & Van den Berg, A.V. (1993) Binocular eye orientation during
®xations: Listing's law extended to include eye vergence. Vision Res., 33,
691±702.
Wylie, D.R. & Frost, B.J. (1993) Responses of pigeon vestibulocerebellar
neurons to optokinetic stimulation. II. The three-dimensional reference frame
of rotation neurons in the ¯occulus. J. Neurophysiol., 70, 2647±2659.
ß 2003 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1±10