Abstract

The question of how the brain can construct a stable representation of the external world despite eye movements is a very old one. If there have been some wrong statements of problems (such as the inverted retinal image), other statements are less naive and have led to analytic solutions possibly adopted by the brain to counteract the spurious effects of eye movements. Following the MacKay (1973) objections to the analytic view of perceptual stability, Bridgeman et al. claim that the idea that signals canceling the effects of saccadic eye movements are needed is also a misconception, as is the claim that stability and position encoding are two distinct problems. It must be remembered, however, that what made the theory of “cancellation” formulated by von Holst and Mittelstaedt (1950) so appealing was the clinical observation of perceptual instability following ocular paralysis. Following the concept of corollary discharge, the theory of efference copy had the advantage of simultaneously solving three problems: the stability of the visual world during the saccade, the same visual stability across saccades, and the visual constancy problem of allowing the subject to know where an object in space is.