scholarly journals Premotor theory of attention

Scholarpedia ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Rizzolatti ◽  
Laila Craighero
Keyword(s):  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

The premotor theory of attention and the Simon effect

2011 ◽  
Vol 136 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob H.J. Van der Lubbe ◽  
Elger L. Abrahamse
Keyword(s):  
Simon Effect ◽  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

Is the premotor theory of attention essentially about pre-reflective intentionality?

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 757-774
Author(s):  
Jacek Bielas ◽  
Łukasz Michalczyk
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Cognitive Process ◽  
Motor Preparation ◽  
Positive Answer ◽  
The Body ◽  
Attentional Processes ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient ◽  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

The Premotor Theory of Attention (PToA) is a prominent, albeit controversial, modern experimental account of attentional processes. According to the PToA, motor preparation is both necessary and sufficient for spatial attention. Explaining the cognitive process of attention in terms of sensori-motor machinery can be considered as embedded in the idea of embodied cognition. The vocabulary adopted by the PToA seems to bear a particular resemblance to Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological notion of pre-reflective intentionality. He articulates it by means of directness towards the lived world, which is constituted in the spatial motility of the body-subject. In this epistemological state of affairs, we come up with two leading questions: (a) can the main tenets of PToA be essentially reconstructed in terms of the notion of pre-reflective intentionality and since the bodily motility is meant by the French phenomenologist to be at the root of all forms of intentionality, (b) can the PToA be expanded to account for all kinds of attention? In conclusion, we advocate a positive answer for the former question and point to serious doubts as to why it can rather not be retained regarding the latter.

The premotor theory of attention as an account for the Simon effect

2012 ◽  
Vol 140 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob H.J. Van der Lubbe ◽  
Elger L. Abrahamse ◽  
Elian De Kleine
Keyword(s):  
Simon Effect ◽  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

The Premotor Theory of Attention

2005 ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laila Craighero ◽  
Giacomo Rizzolatti
Keyword(s):  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

scholarly journals The Premotor theory of attention: Time to move on?

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 1104-1114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Smith ◽  
Thomas Schenk
Keyword(s):  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention

1987 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Rizzolatti ◽  
Lucia Riggio ◽  
Isabella Dascola ◽  
Carlo Umiltá
Keyword(s):  
Premotor Theory Of Attention ◽  
Premotor Theory

scholarly journals Associations and Dissociations between Oculomotor Readiness and Covert Attention

Vision ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soazig Casteau ◽  
Daniel T. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Covert Attention ◽  
Exogenous Attention ◽  
Exogenous Orienting ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Endogenous Orienting ◽  
Covert Orienting ◽  
Profound Influence ◽  
Premotor Theory

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document