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. (shrink)

The calibration solution to the stability of the world despite eye movements depends, according to Bridgeman et al., upon a combination of three factors which presumably all need to operate to achieve the goal of stability. Although the authors admit (sect. 4.3, para. 5) that the relative contributions of retinal and extraretinal factors will depend on the particular viewing situation, Figure 5 (sect. 4.3) makes it clear in its representation that the role of perceptual factors is relatively minor compared to (...) extraretinal ones. It is with this representation that this commentary wishes to take issue, believing that it occurs as a result of some assumptions about terminology that may be ambiguous, as well as some misconceptions about the circumstances in which there is a need for stability. (shrink)