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)...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
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 |