Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-qdphv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-03T09:58:18.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No crisis when attention is the outcome of selective action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2025

Veronica Dudarev Open the ORCID record for Veronica Dudarev [Opens in a new window]  and
James T. Enns Open the ORCID record for James T. Enns [Opens in a new window]
Veronica Dudarev
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada vdudarev@mail.ubc.ca jenns@psych.ubc.ca
James T. Enns*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada vdudarev@mail.ubc.ca jenns@psych.ubc.ca
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rosenholtz addresses the crisis of proliferating mechanisms for visual attention by redefining the concept in terms of (a) the known limitations of peripheral vision and (b) a proper assessment of task complexity. We argue that abandoning the see → decide → act pipeline model and the myth of a centralized gate or resource eliminates this crisis. In our view, “attention” describes an outcome—the consequence of multiple constraints on perception and action—rather than a reified cause.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e137
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In Heuer, H. & Sanders, A. (eds.) Perspectives on Perception and Action, pp. 395–419. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. A., & Mountcastle, V. B. (1983). The influence of the angle of gaze upon the excitability of the light-sensitive neurons of the posterior parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 3(3), 532–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, C. S., Gallivan, J. P., & Enns, J. T. (2015). Separating value from selection frequency in rapid reaching biases to visual targets. Visual Cognition, 23(1–2), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cisek, P. (2012). Making decisions through a distributed consensus. Current Opinion In Neurobiology, 22(6), 927–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colby, C. L. (1998). Action-oriented spatial reference frames in cortex. Neuron, 20(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vito, D., & Fenske, M. J. (2018). Affective evidence that inhibition is involved in separating accessory representations from active representations in visual working memory. Visual Cognition, 26(8), 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiPaola, S., Riebe, C., & Enns, J. T. (2010). Rembrandt’s textural agency: A shared perspective in visual art and science. Leonardo, 43(2), 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiPaola, S., Riebe, C., & Enns, J. T. (2013). Following the masters: Portrait viewing and appreciation is guided by selective detail. Perception, 42(6), 608–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dudarev, V., Manaligod, M. G., Enns, J. T., & Todd, R. M. (2022). In the hands of the beholder: Wearing a COVID-19 mask is associated with its attractiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(4), 598–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, J. T., Brennan, A. A., & Whitwell, R. L. (2017). Attention in action and perception: Unitary or separate mechanisms of selectivity? Progress in Brain Research, 236, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enns, J. T., Lin-Yang, R. C., & Dudarev, V. (2023). Moving to maintain perceptual and social constancy. Visual Cognition, 31(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, J. T., & MacDonald, S. C. (2013). The role of clarity and blur in guiding visual attention in photographs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 568.Google ScholarPubMed
Fenske, M. J., & Raymond, J. E. (2006). Affective influences of selective attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, D. J., Areshenkoff, C. N., Honda, C., Johnsrude, I. S., Flanagan, J. R., & Gallivan, J. P. (2021). Motor planning modulates neural activity patterns in early human auditory cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 31(6), 2952–2967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallivan, J. P., Chapman, C. S., Gale, D. J., Flanagan, J. R., & Culham, J. C. (2019). Selective modulation of early visual cortical activity by movement intention. Cerebral Cortex, 29(11), 4662–4678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Griffiths, O., & Mitchell, C. J. (2008). Negative priming reduces affective ratings. Cognition and Emotion, 22(6), 1119–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayhoe, M., & Ballard, D. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 188–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiss, M., Goolsby, B. A., Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., Silvert, L., Nobre, A. C., … & Eimer, M. (2007). Efficient attentional selection predicts distractor devaluation: Event-related potential evidence for a direct link between attention and emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 ( 8 ), 1316–1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozik, P., & Enns, J. T. (2021). Athletics and attention: Bi-directional influences in the lab and on the field. Current Issues in Sport Science, 6, 002.Google Scholar
Liu, K., Sun, G., Li, B., Jiang, Q., Yang, X., Li, M., … & Liu, Y. (2013). The impact of passive hyperthermia on human attention networks: An fMRI study. Behavioural Brain Research, 243, 220–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakayama, K., Moher, J., & Song, J. H. (2023). Rethinking vision and action. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. In Heuer, H., & Sanders, A. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action. pp. 361–394. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, C. J., Amarasooriya, P., Fallah, M. (2016). An eye in the palm of your hand: Alterations in visual processing near the hand, a mini-review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 10, 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rao, R. P. (2024). A sensory–motor theory of the neocortex. Nature neuroscience, 27(7), 1221–1235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raymond, J. E., Fenske, M. J., & Westoby, N. (2005). Emotional devaluation of distracting patterns and faces: A consequence of attentional inhibition during visual search? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1404.Google ScholarPubMed
Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166–77.Google ScholarPubMed
Ristic, J., & Enns, J. T. (2015). The changing face of attentional development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silver, A. M., Stahl, A. E., Loiotile, R., Smith-Flores, A. S., & Feigenson, L. (2020). When not choosing leads to not liking: Choice-induced preference in infancy. Psychological Science, 31(11), 1422–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, L. H. (2000). Coordinate transformations for eye and arm movements in the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 10(6), 747–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, J. W., & Philibert, V. (2022). The expertise of perception: How experience changes the way we see the world. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truong, G., Chapman, C. S., Chisholm, J. D., Enns, J. T., & Handy, T. C. (2016). Mine in motion: How physical actions impact the psychological sense of object ownership. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(3), 375.Google ScholarPubMed
Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 94–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wispinski, N. J., Lin, S., Enns, J. T., & Chapman, C. S. (2021). Selective attention to real-world objects drives their emotional appraisal. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(1), 122–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Motor prediction. Current Biology, 11(18), R729–R732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed