Skip to main content

Skilled Guidance

Abstract

Skilled action typically requires that individuals guide their activities toward some goal. In skilled action, individuals do so excellently. We do not understand well what this capacity to guide consists in. In this paper I provide a case study of how individuals shift visual attention. Their capacity to guide visual attention toward some goal (partly) consists in an empirically discovered sub-system – the executive system. I argue that we can explain how individuals guide by appealing to the operation of this sub-system. Understanding skill and skilled action thus requires appreciating the role of the executive system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    This notion of guidance derives from Frankfurt (1978). See my 2014 and “Varieties of human agency,” MS.

  2. 2.

    Et.Nic.

  3. 3.

    Fridland 2014, 2019; Ryle 1949; Stanley & Williamson 2001; Noe 2005; Shepherd 2019; Pavese 2018

  4. 4.

    For an argument that all skilled action is goal-directed, see Fridland 2019, 1–5. She rightly points out that goal-direction is compatible with an action’s being automatic in several standard senses.

  5. 5.

    Some philosophers maintain that they must be controlled, because they are actions. Maybe all action requires control over the act’s execution. (Shepherd 2014) I leave this point open.

  6. 6.

    Stanley & Williamson 2001; Fridland 2014; Pavese 2018

  7. 7.

    Pacherie 2006, 2008; Fridland 2019

  8. 8.

    Stanley & Williamson 2001; Pacherie 2006, 2008; Fridland 2014; Butterfill & Sinigaglia 2014; Shepherd 2019

  9. 9.

    Wu 2013; Mylopoulos & Pacherie 2017; Christensen et al. 2016; Montero 2016; Buehler 2019

  10. 10.

    Christensen et al. 2019

  11. 11.

    Papineau 2013; Shepherd 2015

  12. 12.

    Stanley & Krakauer 2013

  13. 13.

    Butterfill & Sinigaglia 2014; Mylopoulos & Pacherie 2017; Shepherd 2019; Fridland 2019. Another strand in the literature focuses on whether skill is intelligent or whether it is automatic. (Stanley & Williamson 2001; Fridland 2017; Christensen et al. 2016; Christensen et al., 2019) What I say about guidance is compatible with the idea that some aspects of skilled action are automatic in some sense. I do, however, reject the notion that skilled action is ballistic, reflex-like, and entirely inflexible.

  14. 14.

    This is not to say that contributors are insensitive to this issue. See Pacherie 2006, 2, 6, 15; 2008, 14. Fridland 2017, 4, 20; 2019, 3ff., 12. Shepherd 2019 rightly points out that, if we do not explain how individuals guide their action through the operation of, e.g., motor control structures, we “risk commitment to something like two centers of agency present in the skilled [agent]. … we seem to need an explanation of how these systems manage to interface and coordinate rather than to compete for the control of action.” (2019, 288) The control must be the individual’s.

  15. 15.

    Christensen et al. 2016 have independently drawn a connection between skilled action and executive function. They are not concerned with goal-directed guidance in my minimal sense, but with the contribution of higher (conscious) cognition, especially conscious attention, to aspects of skilled action. (ibid., 40, 45/6, 61/2) While I think of the executive functions as competencies at the level of sub-systems alone, they seem to think of them as individual-level capacities. (See below, section 3.) While I emphasize functional aspects of agency, in particular, guidance, that the executive functions explain, they focus on explaining the experience of skilled action. But even though (i) their argumentative goal, (ii) their conception of an executive system, and (iii) the empirical data and philosophical arguments they provide differ from mine, I believe that there are more points of agreement than disagreement between the two contributions.

  16. 16.

    Carrasco 2011

  17. 17.

    Posner 1980

  18. 18.

    Jonides 1981

  19. 19.

    Wright. & Ward 2008, 24; Carrasco. 2011, 1488

  20. 20.

    A representational state or event with input from different modalities is intermodal. Modular processes are fast, automatic, driven by a very limited range of inputs, relatively encapsulated, and inaccessible to consciousness. (Fodor1983, 47ff.)

  21. 21.

    They are, or could become, rational-access conscious. (Block. 1995) Human individuals can often report being in those states or undergoing such events.

  22. 22.

    Carrasco 2011; Giordano et al., 2009

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Carrasco 2011, 1488

  25. 25.

    The endogenous and exogenous systems are not only behaviorally and functionally, but also anatomically distinct. (Corbetta & Shulman 2002; Shipp 2004; Gottlieb 2014)

  26. 26.

    Behavioral, brain, and computational studies converge in relying on such a map for understanding the activity of the exogenous and endogenous systems. See, for instance, Itti & Koch 2000; Zelinsky 2008; Najemnik & Geisler 2009. I discuss the priority map more fully in my “The priority map,” MS. In what follows, whenever I describe how different systems or states help shift attention, it should be understood that they do so by influencing priority assignments on the priority map.

  27. 27.

    Carrasco 2011; Wright & Ward 2008

  28. 28.

    Theeuwes 1991a; Theeuwes 1991. Cf. also Jonides 1981; Yantis & Jonides 1984; Yantis & Jonides 1990; Theeuwes 1992

  29. 29.

    Wright & Ward 2008. The threshold depends on context.

  30. 30.

    Early research on capture assumed that a salient stimulus overrides the individuals’ endogenous control under all circumstances. But attentional capture is not strongly automatic. Rather, capture is a function of context and intensity of the salient stimulus. (Lamy, 2005; Yeh & Liao 2008; Folk et al., 2009; Lamy et al., 2012)

  31. 31.

    Pashler 2001; Bacon & Egeth 1994

  32. 32.

    Ullman 1996; Cavanagh et al., 2001; Cavanagh 2005

  33. 33.

    Wright & Ward 2008

  34. 34.

    Theeuwes 1991; Yantis & Jonides 1990

  35. 35.

    Folk et al., 1992, 1035

  36. 36.

    Ibid., 1041ff.

  37. 37.

    Walker & McSorley 2008

  38. 38.

    McPeek et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2006

  39. 39.

    Kristjansson & Campana 2010; Kristjansson & Nakayama 2003; Maljkovic & Nakayama 1994; Maljkovic & Nakayama 2000

  40. 40.

    Anderson 2013; Anderson, 2013; Anderson et al., 2011a, b; Anderson et al., 2012

  41. 41.

    Chun & Jiang 1998; Chun 2003; Chun & Turk-Browne 2008

  42. 42.

    Bar 2004; Brady et al., 2008; Hollingworth 2014; Oliva 2005; Torralba et al., 2006; Brockmole and Henderson, 2006; Brockmole and Henderson, 2006

  43. 43.

    Even working memory can draw attention. (Soto et al., 2006; Soto et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2005)

  44. 44.

    See Miyake et al. 2000; Miller & Cohen 2001; Baddeley 2007; Koechlin and Summerfield, 2007, 2014; Diamond 2013; Gazzaniga et al., 2014; Goldstein et al. 2014; Botvinick & Cohen 2014; Fuster 2015. The conception of the executive system that I sketch here is grounded in psychology. I do not commit to the details of specific psychological account of the executive system. For more on the executive system, see (Buehler 2018)I think of the different executive functions as components of a mechanism constituting the individual’s capacity to guide. The executive system is a sub-system of the individual minimally insofar as this system itself is a component in mechanistic explanation of the whole individual’s capacity to guide. (Craver 2007; Weiskopf 2018) See Buehler 2018 and forthcoming for more on explanatory levels. Thanks to a reviewer for pressing these issues.

  45. 45.

    Miyake & Shah 1999; Jurado & Roselli 2007; Baddeley 2007; Anderson et al., 2008

  46. 46.

    Wayne Wu (2016, 108) and Ellen Fridland (2014, sect. 4.2) have proposed that such (active) attention-shifts must be semantically integrated with individuals’ intentions, or top-down biased by their contents. My proposal might be used to specify how the relevant integration or biasing must work. Thanks to a reviewer for prompting clarification.

  47. 47.

    Zelinsky 2008

  48. 48.

    Geisler & Cormack 2011; Najemnik and Geisler, 2009; Zelinsky 2008

  49. 49.

    Of course, not all executive functions need be exercised, for the executive system to regulate some psychological process. The executive system might regulate, e.g. by allocating central resources to a process, even if no memory and inhibition are required for its execution.

  50. 50.

    Olivers & Eimer 2011; Olivers et al., 2006; Olivers et al., 2011

  51. 51.

    Oh & Kim 2004; Woodman & Luck 2004

  52. 52.

    Walther & Fei-Fei 2007; cf. also Lavie et al., 2004

  53. 53.

    Lavie & De Fockert 2005; Lavie, 2000; Fukuda & Vogel 2009; Lavie & Dalton 2014

  54. 54.

    Individuals also guide attention shifts outside of visual search. We have already seen that individuals can intentionally guide their attention to some specific object, location, or region. Shifts subserving more complex, goal-driven intentional actions form another large class of active attention shifts. One sub-class of these shifts consists in shifts subserving motor behavior. (Hayhoe & Ballard 2005; Land, 2009; Sprague et al., 2007; Land 2009) Another sub-class of shifts is directed toward the goal of acquiring information. (Ballard & Hayhoe 2009; Babcock et al., 2002; Canosa et al., 2003)

  55. 55.

    The fact that executive regulation both correlates with, and explains, individuals’ guidance does provide an argument for the claim that the executive system constitutes a capacity to guide. I address this issue more fully in my “A capacity to guide,” MS.

  56. 56.

    Frankfurt 1978

  57. 57.

    Marks do not constitute a definition. They are paradigmatic characteristics of items in the extension of a concept.

  58. 58.

    The literature acknowledges three marks of individual-level states and events. The third mark is their being phenomenally conscious. States of the executive system are often conscious. This fact supports the idea that the executive system underlies individual-level states and events. The fact justifies predictions that guidance-events will often be conscious. But since I reject a functional explanation of phenomenal consciousness, I do not think that appeals to executive regulation explain states and events’ being conscious in any interesting sense. For this reason I relegate the third mark of individual-level states and events to this footnote. See Burge 2010, 369ff.; on consciousness cf. Dennett 1968; on integration cf. Stich 1978; Fodor 1983; Burge 2009; on coordination cf. Frankfurt 1978; Burge 2009; Hyman 2012.

  59. 59.

    See section 2.3

  60. 60.

    Cf. section 2.2

  61. 61.

    Shepherd 2019, 288

  62. 62.

    Cf. section 2.2

  63. 63.

    Butterfill & Sinigaglia 2014; Mylopoulos & Pacherie 2017; Fridland 2017, 2019

References

  1. Anderson, V., R. Jacobs, and P. Anderson, eds. 2008. Executive functions and the frontal lobes. A lifespan perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, B. 2013. A value-driven mechanism of Attentional selection. Journal of Vision 13 (3): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, B., P. Laurent, and S. Yantis. 2011a. Value-Driven Attentional Capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 10367–10371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, B., P. Laurent, and S. Yantis. 2011b. Learned value magnifies salience-based Attentional capture. PLoS One 6: e27926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, B., P. Laurent, and S. Yantis. 2012. Generalization of value-based Attentional priority. Visual Cognition 20: 647–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Babcock, J., Lipps, M. and Pelz, J. 2002. “How People Look at Pictures Before, During, and After Image Capture: Buswell Revisited.” Rogowitz & Pappas (eds.), Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VII, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4662: 34–47.

  7. Bacon, W., and H. Egeth. 1994. Overriding stimulus-driven Attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics 55: 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baddeley, A.D. 2007. Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Ballard, D., and M. Hayhoe. 2009. Modeling the role of task in the control of gaze. Visual Cognition 17: 118501204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bar, M. 2004. Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 617–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Block, N. 1995. On a confusion about a function of consciousness. In Consciousness, function, and representation, ed. N. Block, 159–214. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Botvinick, M., and J. Cohen. 2014. The computational and neural basis of cognitive control: Charted territory and new frontiers. Cognitive Science 38: 1249–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brady, T., T. Konkle, G. Alvarez, and A. Oliva. 2008. Visual Long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 14325–14329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brockmole, J., and J. Henderson. 2006. Using real-world scenes as contextual cues for search. Visual Cognition 13 (1): 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buehler, D. 2018. The central executive system. Synthese 195 (5): 1969–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buehler, D. 2019. Flexible occurrent control. Philosophical Studies 176 (8): 2119–2137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Burge, T. 2009. Primitive agency and natural norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79: 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Burge, T. 2010. Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Butterfill, S., and C. Sinigaglia. 2014. Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (1): 119–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Canosa, R., Pelz, J., Mennie, N. and Peak, J. 2003. “High-Level Aspects of Oculomotor Control During Viewing of Natural-Task Images.” Rogowitz & Pappas (eds.), Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VIII, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5007: 240–251.

  21. Carrasco, M. 2011. Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research 51: 1484–1525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cavanagh, P. 2005. Attention routines and the architecture of selection. In Cognitive neuroscience of attention, ed. M. Posner, 13–28. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cavanagh, P., A. Labianca, and I. Thornton. 2001. Attention-based visual routines: Sprites. Cognition 80: 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Christensen, W., J. Sutton, and D. McIlwain. 2016. Cognition in skilled action: Meshed control and the varieties of skill experience. Mind & Language 31 (1): 37–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Christensen, W., J. Sutton, and K. Bicknell. 2019. Memory systems and the control of skilled action. Philosophical Psychology 32 (5): 692–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chun, M. 2003. Scene perception and memory. In Psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory: Cognitive vision, ed. D. Irwin and B. Ross, vol. 42, 79–108. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chun, M., and Y. Jiang. 1998. Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology 36: 28–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chun, M., and N. Turk-Browne. 2008. Associative learning mechanisms in vision. In Visual memory, ed. S. Luck and A. Hollingworth, 209–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Corbetta, M., and G. Shulman. 2002. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 3: 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Craver, C. 2007. Explaining the brain. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Dennett, D. 1968. Content and consciousness. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Diamond, A. 2013. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology 64: 135–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fodor, J. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Folk, C., E. Ester, and K. Troemel. 2009. How to keep attention from straying: Get engaged! Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 127–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Folk, C., R. Remington, and C. Johnston. 1992. Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on Attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18 (4): 1030–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Frankfurt, H. 1978. The problem of action, in Frankfurt, H. 1988. The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  37. Fridland, E. 2014. They’ve lost control: Reflections on skill. Synthese 91 (12): 2729–2750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fridland, E. 2017. Skill and motor control: Intelligence all the way down. Philosophical Studies 174: 1539–1560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fridland, E. 2019. “Intention at the Interface.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology: 1–25.

  40. Fukuda, K., and E.K. Vogel. 2009. Human variation in overriding attentional capture. Journal of Neuroscience 29: 8726–8733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fuster, J. 2015. The prefrontal cortex. New York: Academic Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Gazzaniga, M., R. Ivry, and G. Mangun. 2014. Cognitive neuroscience. The biology of the mind. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Geisler, W., and L. Cormack. 2011. Models of overt attention. In The Oxford handbook of eye movements, ed. S. Liversedge, I. Gilchrist, and S. Everling, 439–454. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Giordano, A., B. McElree, and M. Carrasco. 2009. On the automaticity and flexibility of covert attention: A speed-accuracy trade-off analysis. Journal of Vision 9 (3): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Goldstein, S., J. Naglieri, D. Princiotta, and T. Otero. 2014. A history of executive functioning as a theoretical and clinical construct. In Handbook of executive functioning, ed. S. Goldstein and J. Naglieri. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Gottlieb, J. 2014. Neural mechanisms of Attentional control: Parietal cortex. In The Oxford handbook of attention, ed. A. Nobre and S. Kastner, 346–374. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hayhoe, M., and D. Ballard. 2005. Eye movements and natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Science 9: 188–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hollingworth, A. 2014. “Guidance of Visual Search by Memory and Knowledge.” In M. Dodd & J. Flowers (eds.), The Influence of Attention, Learning, and Motivation on Visual Search, Nebraska Symposion on Motivation.

  49. Hyman, J. 2012. Action, knowledge, and will. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Itti, L., and C. Koch. 2000. A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research 40: 1489–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jonides, J. 1981. Voluntary versus automatic control of the Mind's Eye's movement. In Attention & performance IX, ed. J. Long and A. Baddeley, 187–203. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jurado, M., and M. Roselli. 2007. The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current understanding. Neuropsychological Review 17: 213–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Koechlin, E. 2014. An evolutionary computational theory of prefrontal executive function in decision-making. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 369: 20130474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Koechlin, E., and C. Summerfield. 2007. An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function. Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 229–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kristjansson, A., and G. Campana. 2010. Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 72 (1): 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kristjansson, A., and K. Nakayama. 2003. A primitive memory system for the deployment of transient attention. Perception & Psychophysics 65: 711–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lamy, D. 2005. Temporal expectations modulate Attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12: 1112–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lamy, D., Leber, A. and Egeth, H. 2012. Selective Attention. In A. Healy & R. Proctor (eds.), Experimental Psychology Vol. 4. (pp. 267–294). In I. Weiner (ed.), Handbook of psychology, New York: Wiley.

  59. Land, M. 2009. Vision, eye movements, and natural behavior. Visual Neuroscience 26: 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lavie, N. 2000. Selective attention and cognitive control: Dissociating Attentional functions through different types of load. In Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII, ed. S. Monsell and J. Driver, 175–194. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lavie, N., A. Hirst, J. De Fockert, and E. Viding. 2004. Load theory of attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133 (3): 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lavie, N., and J. De Fockert. 2005. The role of working memory in Attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12 (4): 669–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lavie, N., and P. Dalton. 2014. Load theory of attention and cognitive control. In The Oxford handbook of attention, ed. A. Nobre and S. Kastner, 56–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Maljkovic, V., and K. Nakayama. 1994. Priming of pop-out: I. role of features. Memory & Cognition 22: 657–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Maljkovic, V., and K. Nakayama. 2000. Priming of pop-out: III. A short term implicit memory system beneficial for rapid target selection. Visual Cognition 7: 571–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. McPeek, R., J. Han, and E. Keller. 2003. Competition between saccade goals in the superior Colliculus produces saccade curvature. Journal of Neurophysiology 89 (5): 2577–2590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Miller, E., and J. Cohen. 2001. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience 4: 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Miyake, A., and P. Shah, eds. 1999. Models of working memory. Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Miyake, A., N. Friedman, M. Emerson, A. Witzki, A. Howerter, and T. Wager. 2000. The Unity and Diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology 41: 49–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Montero, B. 2016. Thought in action: Expertise and the conscious mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  71. Mylopoulos, M., and E. Pacherie. 2017. Intentions and motor representations: The Interface challenge. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 8 (2): 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Najemnik, J., and W. Geisler. 2009. A simple summation rule for optimal fixation selection in visual search. Vision Research 49: 1286–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Noe, A. 2005. Against intellectualism. Analysis 65: 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Oh, S., and M. Kim. 2004. The role of spatial working memory in visual search efficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (2): 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Oliva, A. 2005. Gist of the scene. In The neurobiology of attention, ed. L. Itti, G. Rees, and J. Tsotsos, 251–256. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  76. Olivers, C., F. Meijer, and J. Theeuwes. 2006. Feature-based memory-driven Attentional capture: Visual working memory content affects visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32 (5): 1243–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Olivers, C., and M. Eimer. 2011. On the difference between working memory and Attentional set. Neuropsychologia 49: 1553–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Olivers, C., J. Peters, R. Houtkamp, and P. Roelfsma. 2011. Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15 (7): 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pacherie, E. 2006. “Toward a Dynamic Theory of Intentions.” In S. Pockett, W. Banks & S. Gallagher (eds.), Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? (pp. 145–167), MIT Press.

  80. Pacherie, E. 2008. The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition 107 (1): 179–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Papineau, D. 2013. In the zone. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 73: 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pashler, H. 2001. Involuntary orienting to flashing distractors in delayed search? In Attraction, distraction, and action: Multiple perspectives on Attentional capture, ed. C. Folk and B. Gibson, 77–92. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  83. Pavese, C. 2018. “Know-how, action, and Luck.” Synthese: 1–23.

  84. Posner, M. 1980. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32: 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ryle, G. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson’s University Library.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Shepherd, J. 2014. The contours of control. Philosophical Studies 170: 395–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Shepherd, J. 2015. Conscious control over action. Mind & Language 30 (3): 320–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Shepherd, J. 2019. Skilled action and the double life of intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 98 (2): 286–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Shipp, S. 2004. The brain circuitry of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (5): 223–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Soto, D., G. Humphreys, D. Heinke, and M. Blanco. 2005. Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 31 (2): 248–261.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Soto, D., G. Humphreys, and D. Heinke. 2006. Working memory can guide pop-out search. Vision Research 46: 1010–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Soto, D., J. Hodsoll, P. Rotshtein, and G. Humphreys. 2008. Automatic guidance of attention from working memory. Trends in Cognitive Science 12 (9): 342–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Sprague, N., D. Ballard, and A. Robinson. 2007. Modeling embodied visual behaviors. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 4: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Stanley, J., and T. Williamson. 2001. Knowing how. Journal of Philosophy 98 (9): 411–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Stanley, J. & Krakauer, J. 2013. Motor skill depends on knowledge of facts. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00503.

  96. Stich, S. 1978. Beliefs and subdoxastic states. Philosophy of Science 45: 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Theeuwes, J. 1991. Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics 49 (1): 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Theeuwes, J. 1991a. Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Perception & Psychophysics 49: 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Theeuwes, J. 1992. Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics 51 (6): 599–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Torralba, A., A. Oliva, M. Castelhano, and J. Henderson. 2006. Contextual guidance of attention in natural scenes: The role of global features on object search. Psychological Review 113 (4): 766–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Ullman, S. 1996. High-level vision. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. Walker, R., E. McSorley, and P. Haggard. 2006. The control of saccade trajectories: Direction of curvature depends on prior knowledge of target location and saccade latency. Perception & Psychophysics 68 (1): 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Walker, R., and E. McSorley. 2008. The influence of distractors on saccade-target selection: Saccade trajectory effects. Journal of Eye Movement Research 2 (3): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Walther, D., and Li Fei-Fei. 2007. Task-set switching with natural scenes: Measuring the cost of deploying top-down attention. Journal of Vision 7 (11): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Weiskopf, D. 2018. The explanatory autonomy of cognitive models. In Integrating psychology and neuroscience: Prospects and problems, ed. M. Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Woodman, G., and S. Luck. 2004. Visual search is slowed when Visuospatial working memory is occupied. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (2): 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Wright, R., and L. Ward. 2008. Orienting of attention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Wu, W. 2013. Mental action and the threat of automaticity. In Decomposing the will, ed. A. Clark, J. Kiverstein, and T. Vierkant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Wu, W. 2016. Experts and deviants: The story of agentive control. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93: 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Yantis, S., and J. Jonides. 1984. Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10: 601–621.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Yantis, S., and J. Jonides. 1990. Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16: 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Yeh, S., and H. Liao. 2008. On the generality of the contingent orienting hypothesis. Acta Psychologica 129: 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Zelinsky, G. 2008. A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review 115 (4): 787–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Tyler Burge. Thanks also to Ned Block, Susan Carey, Martin Davies, Harry G. Frankfurt, Pamela Hieronymi, Kevin Lande, Bence Nanay, Elisabeth Pacherie, Christopher Peacocke, Michael Rescorla, Miguel Ángel Sebastián, Josh Shepherd, James Stazicker, David Velleman, and Hong Yu Wong. Thanks to my commentators Peter Fazekas, Mark Fortney, and Sebastian Watzl at the Minds Online 2016 conference, to participants at the NYU Mind & Consciousness Group in September 2016, UNAM-IIF’s TEC discussion group in May 2016, the UCLA Mind and Language Workshop in October 2015, and to audiences at UCLA, Indiana University Bloomington, the University of Leeds, UNAM, the National Research University in Moscow, York University, Antwerp University, the Pacific APA Seattle, and at Tübingen University. Finally, I wish to thank the reviewers and editors for this journal for their feedback and support. I acknowledge funding from ANR-17-EURE-0017.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Buehler.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buehler, D. Skilled Guidance. Rev.Phil.Psych. 12, 641–667 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00526-9

Download citation