Vision for perception and vision for action

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Vision for perception and vision for action" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Vision for perception and vision for action in

subserves vision for action. This idea finds support in clinical research and animal experiments.

Visual Processing in the Brain

Visual stimuli have been known to process through the brain via two streams: the

. In childhood development, vision for action and vision for perception develop at different rates, supporting the hypothesis of two distinct, linear streams for visual processing.

The above hypothesis has recently been challenged by a new and more parsimonious hypothesis with regard to evolution. The two streams must work hand-in-hand while processing visual information. Neuroanatomical and function neuroimaging studies have proven multiple visual maps that exist in the

at one end should therefore have the same effect on the opposite end, and this cannot be observed experimentally. This further proves the integration of the two streams and many visual processes operating in parallel, involving multiple ventral and dorsal streams in a patchwork-type model.

However, while there exists to be two different hypotheses regarding the processing of vision in the human brain, it is still possible to accept both. Recent experiments prove that difficulties arise when deciphering between vision for action and vision for perception. A clear distinction between the two is difficult to make. Studies prove visual illusions that involve perception more so have considerable results on action. This can clearly rule out the first hypothesis noted above, indicating the thought that visually directed actions always avoid the matter of perception. However, a weaker form of the first hypothesis can still be considered. This states that the content of conscious perception will sometimes influence action, but that its impact on action is less asserted. Both the assumed ventral and dorsal streams can provide guidance of action, however information processed ventrally appears less pronounced and appears more substantial in the processing of perceptual tasks. It has been noted that one can still accept the two-stream hypothesis, but in doing so one must also realize that such a hypothesis still acknowledges the sharing of visual information across pathways and functions, heavily shaped by behavioral tasks.

See also

• Two-streams hypothesis

References

• Street, Sandra Y.; James, Karin H.; Jones, Susan S.; Smith, Linda B. (1 November 2011). "Vision for Action in Toddlers: The Posting Task" (PDF). Child Development. 82 (6): 2083–2094.
  PMID 22004184
  .
• de Haan, Edward H.F.; Cowey, Alan (1 October 2011). "On the usefulness of 'what' and 'where' pathways in vision" (PDF). Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 15 (10): 460–466.
  S2CID 22346354
  .
• Schenk, Thomas; Franz, Volker; Bruno, Nicola (2011). "Vision-for-perception and vision-for-action: Which model is compatible with the available psychophysical and neuropsychological data?". Vision Research. 51 (8): 812–818.
  S2CID 16871380
  .