When briefly presented with pairs of words, skilled readers can sometimes report words with migrated letters (e.g., they report hunt when presented with the words hint and hurt ). This and other letter migration phenomena have been often used to investigate factors that influence reading such as letter position coding. However, the neural basis of letter migration is poorly understood. Previous evidence has implicated the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC) in processing visuospatial attributes and lexical properties during word reading. The aim of this study was to assess this putative role by combining an inhibitory TMS protocol with a letter migration paradigm, which was designed to examine the contributions of visuospatial attributes and lexical factors. Temporary interference with the right PPC led to three specific effects on letter migration. First, the number of letter migrations was significantly increased only in the group with active stimulation (vs. a sham stimulation group or a control group without stimulation), and there was no significant effect on other error types. Second, this effect occurred only when letter migration could result in a meaningful word (migration vs. control context). Third, the effect of active stimulation on the number of letter migrations was lateralized to target words presented on the left. Our study thus demonstrates that the right PPC plays a specific and causal role in the phenomenon of letter migration. The nature of this role cannot be explained solely in terms of visuospatial attention, rather it involves an interplay between visuospatial attentional and word reading-specific factors.

Active vision is a dynamic process involving the flexible coordination of different gaze strategies to achieve behavioral goals. Although many complex behaviors rely on an ability to efficiently switch between gaze-control strategies, few studies to date have examined mechanisms of task level oculomotor control in detail. Here, we report five experiments in which subjects alternated between conflicting stimulus-saccade mappings within a block of trials. The first experiment showed that there is no performance cost associated with switching between pro and anti saccades. However, follow-up experiments demonstrate that whenever subjects alternate between arbitrary stimulus-saccade mappings, latency costs are apparent on the first trial after a task change. More detailed analysis of switch costs showed that latencies were particularly elevated for saccades directed toward the same location that had been the target for a saccade on the preceeding trial. This saccade “inhibition of return” effect was most marked when unexpected error feedbacks cued task switches, suggesting that saccade selection processes are modulated by reward. We conclude that there are two systems for saccade control that differ in their characteristics following a task switch. The “reflexive” control system can be enabled/disabled in advance of saccade execution without incurring any performance cost. Switch costs are only observed when two or more arbitrary stimulus-saccade mappings have to be coordinated by a “symbolic” control system.