Another function that has been associated with FEF activation is processes of spatial attention (Corbetta 1998; Zacks et al. 2001). In an effort to exclude brain regions associated with these functions, we contrasted MOT against a control condition (LUM) that was designed as to engross similar cognitive resources (in regard to vigilance and attentional load) as MOT, as will be discussed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical below. Oculomotor control and the DLFC Oculomotor control during visual processing is often divided into two categories, referring to the origin of their initiation. Accordingly, eye movements can be labeled as

endogenous (goal directed, cued, under top-down control, according to instruction) and exogenous (visually guided, noncued, under bottom-up control, stimulus driven). The involvement of the FEF in the execution of endogenous versus exogenous saccades has Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical been subject to discussion (e.g., Anderson et al. 1994; Paus 1996; Pierrot-Deseilligny et al. 2004; Neggers et al. 2012). By excluding FEF-L related activation from the MC, we sought to erase potential DLFC activation that might have been evoked by “accidentally executed” eye movements during MOT (i.e., despite

the instruction to fixate on the fixation cross). Eye movements elicited by the FEF-L task were strongly exogenously driven (i.e., they were performed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical rapidly in response to target presentation). Accordingly, the application of the exclusive FEF-L mask to the MC removed possible brain activation Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical associated with potential exogenous eye movements during MOT. Thus, any residual brain activation related to oculomotor control would point toward the occurrence of endogenous saccades during MOT. Indeed, while eye movements in the FEF-L task also bore some Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical characteristics of endogenous saccades (i.e., there was a raised level of vigilance toward the appearance of targets in one of four possible locations), we cannot exclude the possibility that MOT elicited significantly more endogenous

eye movements. Interestingly, one could argue, the execution of endogenous saccades toward a moving object would normally require a minimum degree of extrapolation of current object locations into the immediate future (and would thus support our prediction account). However, it is very unlikely (if at all) that accidental saccades in the Entinostat MOT condition have occurred in a systematic manner such that they would have produced any contrast of relevance. In other words, they would have been prone to be eliminated as “noise” in the analyses. We are thus confident that neither exogenous nor endogenous saccades can account for the found DLFC activation. Frontal eye fields activation has also been associated with continuous eye movements during smooth pursuit of target objects. Even so, we feel safe to exclude the occurrence of continuous eye movements, because Jovicich et al.