Seeing on the fly: No need for space-to-time encoding; saccade-generated transients enable fast, parallel representation of space

Is there a need for a space-to-time encoding?If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Information transfer and representation of the outside world via parallel, space-to-space mechanisms is reliable, consistent, and highly efficient.When neural activity reaches V1, significant spatial processing is immediately performed by spatially selective cells, and further processing can commence without delay.To impose additional processing by STT neural encoding calls for dedicating additional neural resources and significant pauses in upstream processing.How do Rucci et al. explain the need to fix a well-working system?According to Rucci et al., the fatal fault in the pure spatial "camera-like . . .static" view is in ignoring that time transients are essential for the visual system functionality and that, specifically, the Perspective is wrong in suggesting that the landing saccade creates a "flash-like imprint on the retina."However, one of the central issues in the Perspective is that the required transients are the powerful time-locked neural volleys generated by the landing saccade.This suggestion is based on solid physiological evidence from various labs.Unlike their unequivocal statement that there is no "shutter-like imprint," their denial of the role played by landing saccades is vague and avoids the issue.They say, "But saccades are not instantaneous, the stimulus moves over the retina both before and after saccade landing."How is this relevant?In the Perspective, I argued at some length that upon landing, the abrupt saccadic deceleration creates a flash-like contrast step, but Rucci et al. simply ignore it.It is also telling that they do not say explicitly that the landing saccade does not generate time-locked responses, which they know to be incorrect, but let the readers draw their own conclusions from their statement about stimulus motion.