Introduction to neural & cognitive modeling: by D.S. Levine. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991. Pages 439. ISBN 0-8058-0267-3 (hardcover), 0-8058-0268-1 (pbk)

Abstract

Recent theories of visual attention, such as the oculomotor readiness theory of Klein (1980) (Does oculomotor readiness mediate cognitive control of the visual attention. In: R. Nickerson, Attention and performance, Hillsdale: Erlbaum), the premotor theory of Rizzolati (1983) (Mechanisms of selective attention in mammals. In: J.P. Ewart, R.R. Capranica, D.J. Ingle, Advances in vertebrate Neuroethology (pp. 261–297). New York: Plenum) and the sequential attention theory of Henderson (1992) (Visual attention and eye movement control during reading and scene perception. In K. Rayner, Eye movements and visual cognition (260–283). New York: Springer-Verlag), propose a link between shifts in spatial attention and the generation of saccadic eye movements. In this paper we show that a winner-take-all model of spatial attention, combined with a simple model for the link between attention and eye movements, can account for the variation in saccadic latency observed in many oculomotor phenomena. These phenomena include the gap effect (Saslow M.G. (1967). Effects of components of displacement-step stimuli upon latency for saccadic eye movement. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 57, 1024–1029), the effect of target jumps on saccadic latency (Becker W. & Jurgens R. (1979). An analysis of the saccadic system by means of double step stimuli. Vision Research, 19, 967–983), the increase of saccadic latency as target eccentricity drops (Kalesnykas R.P. & Hallett P.E. (1994). Retinal eccentricity and the latency of eye saccades. Vision Research, 34, 517–531), and the modulation of saccadic accuracy using target predictability and saccadic latency (Coëffé C. & O’Regan J.K. (1987). Reducing the influence of non-target stimuli on saccade accuracy: predictability and latency effects. Vision Research, 27 (2), 227–240).