Fixation-contingent presentation of stimuli in MEG

FIXATION-CONTINGENT PRESENTATION OF STIMULI IN MEG Laura Barca and I ran an MEG experiment in which participants were instructed to fixate on a central point on a screen positioned 1 metre in front of them. A stimulus (e.g. a word) was then presented very briefly to the left or right of the fixation point. The aim was to track the processing through the brain of words presented in the right visual field, projecting directly to the left (language) hemisphere, or in the left visual field, projecting first to the left (non-language) hemisphere and presumably needing to be transferred across to the left hemisphere via the corpus callosum for processing. In the absence of eye movement monitoring we had to trust our participants to fixate centrally, and to rely on the brief presentations to assert that they could not have re-fixated in the time that the stimulus was on the screen. We can also point to differences in the patterns of brain activation we observed as indicating that we were successful on most trials of the experiment in controlling presentation as we wanted to. There are, however, people out there who could end up reviewing grant applications for further work who get very animated about the need for accurate fixation control in this kind of experiment. There are also two strands of future research that may need more accurate monitoring. One is work I would like to do following up Lisa Henderson's MSc project comparing the responses of dyslexic and non-dyslexic students to words presented in the left and right visual fields. The other is a project by a PhD student of Richard Wise at Imperial College London , Zoe Woodhead (a former undergraduate of ours), who want to use the York MEG system to look at word recognition in patients with hemianopias following occipital strokes. Both dyslexic and hemianopic participants may be assumed to have greater difficulty controlling their fixation than 'normal' participants, and good fixation control would be especially helpful for those studies. It would also help with studies I would like to do in which words will be presented centrally on the assumption that certain letters fall to the left of fixation while other letters fall to the right. What would be nice to have, then, is a way of ensuring that stimuli are only displayed on the screen when a participant is fixating on, or close to, a central fixation point. We normally offset the inner edge of our stimuli by 1.5 degrees, so it would be good to define a central fixation sphere with a radius of 0.5 degrees at 1 m distant from the participant, and only to present the stimulus on a given trial when fixation is within that sphere. So: 1. Would the resolution of the system allow us to know when someone is fixating within a sphere that has a diameter of 1 degree at 1 metre distance? Is a smaller resolution possible? 2. What would be the minimum time between registering that fixation is within the defined region and a stimulus appearing on the screen? I want to avoid suggestions that participants may have moved their eyes in the interval between fixation being registered and the stimulus being presented. It might help to present the stimulus after fixation has been within the central sphere for a certain period of time in order to exclude the possibility that participants were sweeping their eyes through the sphere when presentation was triggered. 3. Richard Wise and Zoe Woodhead would be interested in a variant of this procedure where a stimulus remains on the screen for as long as fixation remains within the central region. This would allow more prolonger presentation of stimuli to, for example, patients with hemianopias whose processing of visual inputs may be relatively slow. I know that Richard and Zoe have toyed with presenting "sentences" in one or other visual field by displaying one word after another at the same position. That would be OK to do if we could know that fixation remained central throughout. 4. Finally, I gather from the meeting last night that only one eye is monitored. There is quite a lot of discussion in the literature about how often the two eyes focus on the same point, and how often there is either 'crossed' or 'uncrossed' fixation. We would need to think about this, and whether we should, for example, put a patch over the unmonitored eye. I am posting this on ynic-users because we were encouraged to do so. I am hoping for a sober response from YNiC which is realistic about what could and could not be done, any difficulties we may run into, and the time that would be required to implement a system like this (assuming that it is do-able). At the moment all I need to know is what could or could not be achieved so that I can write that in confidence into grant applications. Other people with an interest in vision and MEG (Silvia, Piers, Andy Y etc) may want to chip in so that YNiC can get a fuller understanding of what people would like to have in the way of intergrated fixation monitoring and stimulus presentation. Andy Ellis 19 Oct 2007