Abstract

In their model, Findlay & Walker propose that where and when the eyes move is determined by two relatively independent processing streams. Whereas both saccade direction and amplitude result from a low-level visual analysis of the peripheral visual stimulation, saccade latency results mainly from higher-level processes related to processing of the central information. In the present commentary, reading eye movement data are put forward as evidence against a strict autonomy of “Where” and “When” processing streams. First, saccade direction and amplitude might be modified by high-level processes related to word identification. Second, the direction of a saccade directly affects its latency.