Search

Knowledge of cognitive and neural architecture and processes that control eye movements has advanced enough to allow precise and quantitative analysis of hitherto unsolved phenomena. In this review, we revisit from a neuropsychological viewpoint Hering vs. Helmholtz' hypotheses on binocular coordination. Specifically, we reexamine the behavior and the neural bases of saccade-vergence movement, to move the gaze in both direction and depth under natural conditions. From the psychophysical viewpoint, neo-Heringian and neo-Helmholtzian authors have accumulated arguments favoring distinct conjugate (for saccades) and disconjugate (for vergence) systems, as well as advocating for monocularly programmed eye movements. From the neurophysiological viewpoint, which reports brain cell recordings during the execution of a given task, neo-Heringian and neo-Helmholtzian physiologists have also provided arguments in favor of both hypotheses at the level of the brainstem premotor circuitry. Bridging the two, we propose that Hering and Helmholtz were both right. The emphasis placed by the latter on adaptive processes throughout life cycle is compatible with the importance of neurobiological constraints pointed out by the former. In the meanwhile, the study of saccade-vergence eye movements recalls how much the psychophysical definition of the task determines the interpretation that is made from neurophysiological data., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Reading is an activity based on complex sequences of binocular saccades and fixations. During saccades, the eyes do not move together perfectly: saccades could end with a misalignment, compromising fused vision. During fixations, small disconjugate drift can partly reduce this misalignment. We hypothesized that maintaining eye alignment during reading involves active monitoring from posterior parietal cortex (PPC); this goes against traditional views considering only downstream binocular control. Nine young adults read a text; transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied over the PPC every 5 ± 0.2 s. Eye movements were recorded binocularly with Eyelink II. Stimulation had three major effects: (1) disturbance of eye alignment during fixation; (2) increase of saccade disconjugacy leading to eye misalignment; (3) decrease of eye alignment reduction during fixation drift. The effects depend on the side; the right PPC was more involved in maintaining alignment over the motor sequence. Thus, the PPC is actively involved in the control of binocular eye alignment during reading, allowing clear vision. Cortical activation during reading is related to linguistic processes and motor control per se. The study might be of interest for the understanding of deficits of binocular coordination, encountered in several populations, e.g., in children with dyslexia.