, 2009; Goffart et al., 2012), and so would be expected to be affected by rostral spread of muscimol in the SC. As shown in Fig. 2B, these microsaccades were not consistently reduced in frequency (upper left panel), as might be expected from a rostral spread of muscimol in the SC (Hafed et al., 2009; Goffart et al., 2012), and any changes buy Ibrutinib in their amplitudes or peak velocities were correlated such that the main sequence relationship (lower right panel) was not affected by the injections. We took one final measure to exclude rostral spread of muscimol as the primary determinant of our results: we repeated all analyses in this study, but now without the

outlier injection in Fig. 2B (upper left panel), in which microsaccade frequency was dramatically reduced as compared with pre-injection levels, and confirming that the results that we describe in this Osimertinib article remained the same. Our data collection procedures consisted of two conceptually similar steps. Before inactivation, we collected ‘pre-injection’ data from the attention task of Fig. 1, in which cue location was blocked for 40 trials at a time, either at the visual location corresponding to the SC site about to be inactivated

or at the opposite location. Thus, in the pre-injection data, we collected trials in which either the cue or the foil was in the region to be affected by the upcoming SC inactivation. As detailed in supplementary Table 1 of Lovejoy & Krauzlis (2010), these data were collected over a period

of ~45–90 min (including the collection of ‘pre-injection’ visually guided saccades to later assess the extent of inactivation). After muscimol injection, we then repeated the data collection exactly as in the pre-injection phase. This second ‘post-injection’ data set was collected over a period of ~60–90 min. We always flipped cue and foil locations every 40 trials (Fig. 1B), ensuring that comparisons between trials in which the cue was in the affected region of space and trials in which the foil was in the affected region were counterbalanced as a function of time. Thus, differences in behavioral results between these two groups of trials could not be explained by differences in the effectiveness of the drug as a function of time progression during ADAM7 the experiments. Across sessions, we collected data from ~4980 pre-injection trials in 11 sessions from the saccade variant of the selective attention task, and we collected data from ~5344 inactivation trials. For the button press variant of the task, we collected data from ~2807 pre-injection trials in eight sessions and data from ~3334 inactivation trials. By carefully selecting the inactivated SC site across experimental sessions, we ensured that the combined data from all sessions had trials that were approximately uniformly distributed across all four possible cue locations in the display.