A prevalent tacit assumption of the continuity of visual representation during fixations is challenged and shown to be logically tenuous. Relying upon three lines of suggestive evidence, it is then argued that representation must be in the form of static snapshots which alternate with very short dark periods wherein the image is omitted from vision. In view of the difficulties of a direct experimental verification of such a high-frequency intermittence, a conceptual approach to the question is defended.
References
1.
BahillA. T.StarkL. (1979) The trajectories of saccadic eye movements. Scientific American, 240, 108–117.
2.
BraunsteinM. L. (1976) Depth perception through motion. New York: Academic Press.
3.
CampbellF. W.WurtzR. H. (1978) Saccadic omission: why we do not see a gray-out during a saccadic eye movement. Vision Research, 18, 1297–1303.
4.
LythgoeJ. N. (1979) The ecology of vision. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
5.
MatinE. (1974) Saccadic suppression: a review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 899–917.
6.
MilesW. R. (1931) Movement interpretations of the silhouette of a revolving fan. American Journal of Psychology, 43, 392–405.
7.
ParksT. E. (1965) Post-retinal visual storage. American Journal of Psychology, 78, 145–147.
8.
RockI. (1975) An introduction to perception. New York: Macmillan.
9.
TurveyM. T. (1977) Contrasting orientations to the theory of visual information-processing. Psychological Review, 84, 67–88.
10.
YarbusA. L. (1967) Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum.
