Responds to comments by V. S. Ramachandran (see record 1996-32966-001) regarding J. C. Culham and P. Cavanagh's (see record 1995-16018-001) suggestion that attention can actually cause motion capture. Ramachandran provides examples that both support and, supposedly, contradict this hypothesis. He suggests that some of the evidence supports the contrary view that capture is preattentive. While no evidence is found for preattentive motion capture, it is suggested that attentive and preattentive influences on motion capture need not be mutually exclusive, as Ramachandran states. There is new evidence that shifts of attention may produce motion signals independent of modulatory effects on low-level signals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)