Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention

The idea that covert mental processes such as spatial attention are fundamentally dependent on systems that control overt movements of the eyes has had a profound influence on theoretical models of spatial attention. However, theories such as Klein’s Oculomotor Readiness Hypothesis (OMRH)...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Soazig Casteau, Daniel T. Smith
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019-05-01
Series:Vision
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/3/2/17
id doaj-4939cdc499d9496099de12ae103a43df
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4939cdc499d9496099de12ae103a43df2020-11-24T20:46:44ZengMDPI AGVision2411-51502019-05-01321710.3390/vision3020017vision3020017Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert AttentionSoazig Casteau0Daniel T. Smith1Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3HP, UKDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3HP, UKThe idea that covert mental processes such as spatial attention are fundamentally dependent on systems that control overt movements of the eyes has had a profound influence on theoretical models of spatial attention. However, theories such as Klein’s Oculomotor Readiness Hypothesis (OMRH) and Rizzolatti’s Premotor Theory have not gone unchallenged. We previously argued that although OMRH/Premotor theory is inadequate to explain pre-saccadic attention and endogenous covert orienting, it may still be tenable as a theory of exogenous covert orienting. In this article we briefly reiterate the key lines of argument for and against OMRH/Premotor theory, then evaluate the Oculomotor Readiness account of Exogenous Orienting (OREO) with respect to more recent empirical data. These studies broadly confirm the importance of oculomotor preparation for covert, exogenous attention. We explain this relationship in terms of reciprocal links between parietal ‘priority maps’ and the midbrain oculomotor centres that translate priority-related activation into potential saccade endpoints. We conclude that the OMRH/Premotor theory hypothesis is false for covert, endogenous orienting but remains tenable as an explanation for covert, exogenous orienting.https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/3/2/17attentioncovertoculomotor readiness hypothesispremotor theoryexogenousendogenouseye abduction
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Soazig Casteau
Daniel T. Smith
spellingShingle Soazig Casteau
Daniel T. Smith
Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention
Vision
attention
covert
oculomotor readiness hypothesis
premotor theory
exogenous
endogenous
eye abduction
author_facet Soazig Casteau
Daniel T. Smith
author_sort Soazig Casteau
title Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention
title_short Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention
title_full Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention
title_fullStr Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention
title_full_unstemmed Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention
title_sort associations and dissociations between oculomotor readiness and covert attention
publisher MDPI AG
series Vision
issn 2411-5150
publishDate 2019-05-01
description The idea that covert mental processes such as spatial attention are fundamentally dependent on systems that control overt movements of the eyes has had a profound influence on theoretical models of spatial attention. However, theories such as Klein’s Oculomotor Readiness Hypothesis (OMRH) and Rizzolatti’s Premotor Theory have not gone unchallenged. We previously argued that although OMRH/Premotor theory is inadequate to explain pre-saccadic attention and endogenous covert orienting, it may still be tenable as a theory of exogenous covert orienting. In this article we briefly reiterate the key lines of argument for and against OMRH/Premotor theory, then evaluate the Oculomotor Readiness account of Exogenous Orienting (OREO) with respect to more recent empirical data. These studies broadly confirm the importance of oculomotor preparation for covert, exogenous attention. We explain this relationship in terms of reciprocal links between parietal ‘priority maps’ and the midbrain oculomotor centres that translate priority-related activation into potential saccade endpoints. We conclude that the OMRH/Premotor theory hypothesis is false for covert, endogenous orienting but remains tenable as an explanation for covert, exogenous orienting.
topic attention
covert
oculomotor readiness hypothesis
premotor theory
exogenous
endogenous
eye abduction
url https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/3/2/17
work_keys_str_mv AT soazigcasteau associationsanddissociationsbetweenoculomotorreadinessandcovertattention
AT danieltsmith associationsanddissociationsbetweenoculomotorreadinessandcovertattention
_version_ 1716811701778644992