Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 84, Issue 6, pp 1285–1324 | Cite as

The Neural Dynamics of Seeing-In

  • Gabriele FerrettiEmail author
Original Contribution

Abstract

Philosophers have suggested that, in order to understand the particular visual state we are in during picture perception, we should focus on experimental results from vision neuroscience—in particular, on the most rigorous account of the functioning of the visual system that we have from vision neuroscience, namely, the ‘Two Visual Systems Model’. According to the initial version of this model, our visual system can be dissociated, from an anatomo-functional point of view, into two streams: a ventral stream subserving visual recognition, and a dorsal stream subserving the visual guidance of action. Following this model, philosophers have suggested that, since the two streams have different functions, they represent different properties of a picture. However, the original view proposed by the ‘Two Visual Systems Model’ about the presence of a strong anatomo-functional dissociation between the two streams has recently been questioned on both philosophical and experimental grounds. Indeed, the analysis of several new pieces of evidence seems to suggest that many visual representations in our visual system, related to different tasks, are the result of a deep functional interaction between the streams. In the light of the renewed status of the ‘Two Visual Systems Model’, also our best philosophical model of picture perception should be renewed, in order to take into account a view of the process of picture perception informed by the new evidence about such interaction. Despite this, no account fulfilling this role has been offered yet. The aim of the present paper is precisely to offer such an account. It does this by suggesting that the peculiar visual state we are in during picture perception is subserved by interstream interaction. This proposal allows us to rely on a rigorous philosophical account of picture perception that is, however, also based on the most recent results from neuroscience. Unless the explanation offered in this paper is endorsed, all the recent evidence from vision neuroscience will remain unexplained under our best empirically informed philosophical theory of picture perception.

References

  1. Aasen, S. (2015). Pictures, presence and visibility. Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 187–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0475-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5, 679–685.Google Scholar
  3. Almeida, J., Mahon, B. Z., Nakayama, K., & Caramazza, A. (2008). Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 15214–15218.Google Scholar
  4. Bar, M. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 600–609.Google Scholar
  5. Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., et al. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 449–454.Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, L. F., & Bar, L. F. (2009). See it with feeling: Affective predictions during object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 364, 1325–1334.Google Scholar
  7. Barry, S. (2009). Fixing my gaze. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bettencourt, K. C., & Xu, Y. (2013). The role of transverse occipital sulcus in scene perception and its relationship to object individuation in inferior intraparietal sulcus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1711–1722.Google Scholar
  9. Block, N. (2014). Seeing-as in the light of vision science. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1), 560–572.Google Scholar
  10. Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 351.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borra, E., Belmalih, A., Calzavara, R., et al. (2007). Cortical connections of the macaque anterior intraparietal (AIP) area. Cerebral Cortex, 18(5), 1094–1111.Google Scholar
  12. Briscoe, R. (2009). Egocentric spatial representation in action and perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79, 423–460.Google Scholar
  13. Briscoe, R. (2016) Depiction, pictorial experience, and vision science. In C. Hill & B. McLaughlin (Eds.), Philosophical topics, special issue on appearance properties, 44(2).Google Scholar
  14. Briscoe, R. (2018). Gombrich and the Duck-Rabbit. In M. Beaney (Ed.), Aspect perception after Wittgenstein: Seeing-as and novelty (pp. 49–88). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Briscoe, R., & Schwenkler, J. (2015). Conscious vision in action. Cognitive Science, 39(7), 1435–1467.Google Scholar
  16. Brogaard, B. (2011a). Conscious vision for action versus unconscious vision for action? Cognitive Science, 35, 1076–1104.Google Scholar
  17. Brogaard, B. (2011b). Are there unconscious perceptual processes? Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 449–463.Google Scholar
  18. Bruno, N. (2001). When does action resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 385–388.Google Scholar
  19. Bruno, N., & Battaglini, P. P. (2008). Integrating perception and action through cognitive neuropsychology (broadly conceived). Cognitive Neuropshycology, 25(7–8), 879–890.Google Scholar
  20. Bruno, N., & Franz, V. H. (2009). When is grasping affected by the Müller–Lyer illusion? A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1421–1433.Google Scholar
  21. Bullier, J. (2001). Integrated model of visual processing. Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews, 36, 96–107.Google Scholar
  22. Bullier, J., Hupè, J. M., James, A. C., et al. (2001). The role of feedback connections in shaping the responses of visual cortical neurons. Progress in Brain Research, 134, 193–204.Google Scholar
  23. Cavedon-Taylor, D. (2011). The space of seeing-in. British Journal of Aesthetics, 51(3), 271–278.Google Scholar
  24. Ferretti G., & Chinellato, E. (In Press) Can our Robots rely on an emotionally charged vision-for-action? An embodied model for neurorobotics. In J. Vallverdú, & V. C. Müller (Eds.), Blended cognition. The robotic challenge, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Chinellato, E., & del Pobil, A. P. (2016). The visual neuroscience of robotic grasping. Achieving sensorimotor skills through dorsal-ventral stream integration. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Clark, A. (2009). Perception, action, and experience: Unraveling the golden braid. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1460–1468.Google Scholar
  27. Cloutman, L. L. (2013). Interaction between dorsal and ventral processing streams: Where, when and how? Brain and Language, 127(2), 251–263.Google Scholar
  28. Cohen, N., Cross, E., Tunikc, E., et al. (2009). Ventral and dorsal stream contributions to the online control of immediate and delayed grasping: A TMS approach. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1553–1562.Google Scholar
  29. Culham, J. C. (2018). Getting a grip on reality: Grasping movements directed to real objects and images rely on dissociable neural representations. Cortex, 98, 34–48.Google Scholar
  30. Culham, J. C., Cavina-Pratesi, C., & Singhal, A. (2006). The role of parietal cortex in visuomotor control: What have we learned from neuroimaging? Neuropsychologia, 44(13), 2668–2684.Google Scholar
  31. Cutting, J. E. (2003). Reconceiving perceptual space. In H. Hecht, R. Schwartz, & M. Atherton (Eds.), Looking into pictures: An interdisciplinary approach to pictorial space (pp. 215–238). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. de Haan, E. H. F., Jackson, S. T., & Schenk, T. (2018). Where are we now with ‘What’ and ‘How’? Cortex, 98(1), 7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Di Carlo, J. J., Zoccolan, D., & Rust, N. C. (2012). How does the brain solve visual object recognition? Neuron, 73, 415–434.Google Scholar
  34. Dijkerman, H. C., McIntosh, R. D., Schindler, I., Nijboer, T. C. W., & Milner, A. D. (2009). Choosing between alternative wrist postures: Action planning needs perception. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1476–1482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Durand, J. B., Nelissen, K., Joly, O., et al. (2007). Anterior regions of monkey parietal cortex process visual 3D shape. Neuron, 55(3), 493–505.Google Scholar
  36. Durand, J. B., Peeters, R., Norman, J. F., et al. (2009). Parietal regions processing visual 3D shape extracted from disparity. Neuroimage, 46, 1114–1126.Google Scholar
  37. Fang, F., & He, S. (2005). Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1380–1385.Google Scholar
  38. Farivar, R. (2009). Dorsal–ventral integration in object recognition. Brain Research Reviews, 61(2), 144–153.Google Scholar
  39. Ferretti, G. (2016a). Pictures, action properties and motor related effects. Synthese, Special Issue: Neuroscience and Its Philosophy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1097-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ferretti, G. (2016b). Through the forest of motor representations. Consciousness and Cognition, 43, 177–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ferretti, G. (2016c). Visual feeling of presence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ferretti, G. (2017a). Pictures, emotions, and the dorsal/ventral account of picture perception. Review of Philosophy and Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0330-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ferretti, G. (2017b). Two visual systems in molyneux subjects. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9533-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ferretti, G. (2017c). Are pictures peculiar objects of perception? Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(3), 372–393.  https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2017.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ferretti, G. (Forthcoming). Perceiving surfaces (and what they depict). In B. Glenney & J. F. Silva (Eds.), The senses and the history of philosophy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Ferretti, G., & Zipoli Caiani, S. (2018). Solving the interface problem without translation: The same format thesis. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fogassi, L., & Luppino, G. (2005). Motor functions of the parietal lobe. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(6), 626–631.Google Scholar
  48. Foley, T. R., Whitwell, R. L., & Goodale, M. A. (2015). The two-visual-systems hypothesis and the perspectival features of visual experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 35(2015), 225–233.Google Scholar
  49. Freud, E., Ganel, T., & Shelef, I, et al. (2015a). Three-dimensional representations of objects in dorsal cortex are dissociable from those in ventral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  50. Freud, E., Rosenthal, G., Ganel, T., & Avidan, G. (2015b). Sensitivity to object impossibility in the human visual cortex: Evidence from functional connectivity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 1029–1043.Google Scholar
  51. Gallese, V. (2007). The ‘‘Conscious” dorsal stream: Embodied simulation and its role in space and action conscious awareness. Psyche, 13(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  52. Georgieva, S., Peeters, R., Kolster, H., et al. (2009). The processing of three-dimensional shape from disparity in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 727–742.Google Scholar
  53. Gombrich, E. (1960). Art and illusion. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  54. Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (2004). Sight unseen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (2018). Two visual pathways–where have they taken us and where will they lead in future? Cortex, 98, 283–292.Google Scholar
  56. Grill-Spector, K., Kushnir, T., Edelman, S., et al. (1999). Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron, 24, 187–203.Google Scholar
  57. Grill-Spector, K., & Malach, R. (2004). The human visual cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 649–677.Google Scholar
  58. Grush, R. (2000). Self, world, and space: The meaning and mechanisms of ego- and allocentric spatial representation. Brain and Mind, 1, 59–92.Google Scholar
  59. Haak, K. V., & Beckmann, C. F. (2018). Objective analysis of the topological organization of the human cortical visual connectome suggests three visual pathways. Cortex, 98, 73–83.Google Scholar
  60. Hecht, H., Schwartz, R., & Atherton, M. (Eds.). (2003). Looking into pictures: An interdisciplinary approach to pictorial space (pp. 215–238). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Helbig, H. B., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2006). The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 174, 221–228.Google Scholar
  62. Helbig, H. B., Steinwender, J., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2010). Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 200, 251–258.Google Scholar
  63. Hopkins, R. (1998). Picture, image and experience. A philosophical inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Hopkins, R. (2003). Pictures, phenomenology and cognitive science. Monist, 86, 653–675.Google Scholar
  65. Hopkins, R. (2010). Inflected pictorial experience: Its treatment and significance. In C. Abell & K. Bantilaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hopkins, R. (2012). Seeing-in and seeming to see. Analysis, 72, 650–659.Google Scholar
  67. Hoshi, E., & Tanji, J. (2007). Distinctions between dorsal and ventral premotor areas: Anatomical connectivity and functional properties. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 17(2), 234–242.Google Scholar
  68. Ikkai, A., Jerde, T. A., & Curtis, C. E. (2011). Perception and action selection dissociate human ventral and dorsal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1494–1506.Google Scholar
  69. Jacob, P., & Jeannerod, M. (2003). Ways of seeing: The scope and limits of visual cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. James, T., Humphrey, G., Gati, J., et al. (2002). Differential effects of viewpoint on object-driven activation in dorsal and ventral stream. Neuron, 35, 793–801.Google Scholar
  71. Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  72. Jeannerod, M. (2006). Motor cognition: What actions tell the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Jeannerod, M., Decety, J., & Michel, F. (1994). Impairment of grasping movements following a bilateral posterior parietal lesion. Neuropsychologia, 32, 369–380.Google Scholar
  74. Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessell, T. M., et al. (2013). Principles of neural science. New York: McGraw Hill Medical.Google Scholar
  75. Kiefer, M., Sim, E. J., Helbig, H., & Graf, M. (2011). Tracking the time course of action priming on object recognition: evidence for fast and slow influences of action on perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1864–1874.Google Scholar
  76. Konen, C. S., & Kastner, S. (2008). Two hierarchically organized neural systems for object information in human visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 224–231.Google Scholar
  77. Kopiske, K., Bruno, N., Hesse, K., Schenk, T., & Franz, V. H. (2016). The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study. Cortex, 79, 130–152.Google Scholar
  78. Kozuch, B. (2015). Dislocation, not dissociation: The neuroanatomical argument against visual experience driving motor action. Mind and Language, 30(5), 572–602.Google Scholar
  79. Kravitz, D. J., Saleem, K. I., Baker, C. I., & Mishkin, M. (2011). A new neural framework for visuospatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12, 217–230.Google Scholar
  80. Kravitz, D. J., Saleem, K. S., Baker, C. I., et al. (2013). The ventral visual pathway: An expanded neural framework for the processing of object quality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 26–49.Google Scholar
  81. Kulvicki, J. (2006). On images. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  82. Laycock, R., Crewther, S. G., & Crewther, D. P. (2007). A role for the “magnocellular advantage” in visual impairments in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 31, 363–376.Google Scholar
  83. Laycock, R., Crewther, D. P., Fitzgerald, P. B., & Crewther, S. G. (2009). TMS disruption of V5/MT+ indicates a role for the dorsal stream in word recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 197, 69–79.Google Scholar
  84. Laycock, R., Cross, A. J., Lourenco, T., & Crewther, S. G. (2011). Dorsal stream involvement in recognition of objects with transient onset but not with ramped onset. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 7, 34.Google Scholar
  85. Lebedev, M. A., & Wise, S. P. (2002). Insights into seeing and grasping: Distinguishing the neural correlates of perception and action. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 1(2), 108–129.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582302001002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lehky, S. R., & Sereno, A. B. (2007). Comparison of shape encoding in primate dorsal and ventral visual pathways. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 307–319.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00168.2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Levy, T., Walsh, V., & Lavidor, M. (2010). Dorsal stream modulation of visual word recognition in skilled readers. Vision Research, 50(9), 883–888.Google Scholar
  88. Lopes, D. M. (1996). Understanding pictures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Lopes, D. M. (2005). Sight and sensibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Martinaud, O., Mirlink, N., Bioux, S., et al. (2014). Agnosia for mirror stimuli: A new case report with a small parietal lesion. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(7), 724–728.Google Scholar
  91. Matthen, M. (2005). Seeing, doing and knowing: A philosophical theory of sense perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. McIntosh, R. D., & Schenk, T. (2009). Two visual streams for perception and action: Current trends. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1391–1396.Google Scholar
  93. Millikan, R. (2004). Varieties of meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. Milner, A., & Goodale, M. (1995/2006). The visual brain in action (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46, 774–785.Google Scholar
  96. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2010). Cortical visual systems for perception and action. In N. Gangopadhyay, M. Madary, & F. Spencer (Eds.), Perception, action, and consciousness: Sensorimotor dynamics and the two visual systems (pp. 71–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Mole, C. (2009). Illusions, demonstratives, and the zombie action hypothesis. Mind, 118, 472.Google Scholar
  98. Murata, A., Gallese, V., Luppino, G., et al. (2000). Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83(5), 2580–2601.Google Scholar
  99. Nanay, B. (2010). Inflected and uninflected experience of pictures. In C. Abell & K. Bantinaki (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 181–207). Oxford: Oxford U.P.Google Scholar
  100. Nanay, B. (2011). Perceiving pictures. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10, 461–480.Google Scholar
  101. Nanay, B. (2013). Between perception and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Nanay, B. (2015). Trompe l’oeil and the dorsal/ventral account of picture perception. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 181–197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0219-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Nanay, B. (2017). Threefoldness. Philosophical Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0860-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Nelissen, K., Joly, O., Durand, J. B., et al. (2009). The extraction of depth structure from shading and texture in the macaque brain. PLoS ONE, 4(12), e8306.Google Scholar
  105. Noudoost, B., Chang, M. H., Steinmetz, N. A., & Moore, T. (2010). Top-down control of visual attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 183–190.Google Scholar
  106. Orban, G. A. (2011). The extraction of 3D shape in the visual system of human and nonhuman primates. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34, 361–388.Google Scholar
  107. Pammer, K., Hansen, P., Holliday, I., & Cornelissen, P. (2006). Attentional shifting and the role of the dorsal pathway in visual word recognition. Neuropsychologia, 44(14), 2926–2936.Google Scholar
  108. Perry, C. J., & Fallah, M. (2014). Feature integration and object representations along the dorsal stream visual hierarchy. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 8, 84.Google Scholar
  109. Peuskens, H., Claeys, K. G., Todd, J. T., et al. (2004). Attention to 3-D shape, 3-D motion, and texture in 3-D structure from motion displays. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 665–682.Google Scholar
  110. Priftis, K., Rusconi, E., Umilta, C., & Zorzi, M. (2003). Pure agnosia for mirror stimuli after right inferior parietal lesion. Brain, 126(Pt 4), 908–919.Google Scholar
  111. Raos, V., Umiltà, M. A., Murata, A., et al. (2006). Functional properties of grasping-related neurons in the ventral premotor area F5 of the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 709–729.Google Scholar
  112. Rice, N. J., Valyear, K. F., Goodale, M. A., et al. (2007). Orientation sensitivity to graspable objects: An fMRI adaptation study. Neuroimage, 36, T87–T93.Google Scholar
  113. Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 146–157.Google Scholar
  114. Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2008). Mirrors in the brain how our minds share actions and emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Rossetti, Y., Pisella, L., & McIntosh, R. D. (2017). Rise and fall of the two visual systems theory. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 60(3), 130–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rossetti, Y., Pisella, L., & Vighetto, A. (2003). Optic ataxia revisited: Visually guided action versus immediate visuomotor control. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 171–179.Google Scholar
  117. Sakata, H., Tsutsui, K., & Taira, M. (2003). Representation of the 3D world in art and in the brain. International Congress Series, 1250, 5–35.Google Scholar
  118. Sawamura, H., Georgieva, S., Vogels, R., et al. (2005). Using functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess adaptation and size invariance of shape processing by humans and monkeys. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 4294–4306.Google Scholar
  119. Schenk, T., & McIntosh, R. D. (2010). Do we have independent visual streams for perception and action? Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 52–78.Google Scholar
  120. Sereno, A. B., & Maunsell, J. H. (1998). Shape selectivity in primate lateral intraparietal cortex. Nature, 395(6701), 500–503.Google Scholar
  121. Sereno, M. E., Trinath, T., Augath, M., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Three-dimensional shape representation in monkey cortex. Neuron, 33(4), 635–652.Google Scholar
  122. Shepherd, J. (2015). Conscious action/zombie action. Noûs, 50(2), 219–244.Google Scholar
  123. Sim, E.-J., Helbig, H. B., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2015). When action observation facilitates visual perception: Activation in visuo-motor areas contributes to object recognition. Cerebral Cortex, 25, 2907–2918.Google Scholar
  124. Singhal, A., Culham, J. C., Chinellato, E., & Goodale, M. A. (2007). Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. Journal of Vision, 7(5), 1–12.Google Scholar
  125. Singhal, A., Monaco, S., Kaufman, L. D., & Culham, J. C. (2013). Human fMRI reveals that delayed action re-recruits visual perception. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73629.Google Scholar
  126. Srivastava, S., Orban, G. A., De Mazière, P. A., & Janssen, P. (2009). A distinct representation of three-dimensional shape in macaque anterior intraparietal area: Fast, metric, and coarse. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(34), 10613–10626.Google Scholar
  127. Taira, M., Nose, I., Inoue, K., & Tsutsui, K. (2001). Cortical areas related to attention to 3D surface. Neuroimage, 14(5), 959–966.Google Scholar
  128. Takemura, H., Rokem, A., Winawer, J., et al. (2016). A major human white matter pathway between dorsal and ventral visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 26(5), 2205–2214.Google Scholar
  129. Tanaka, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19(109), 139.Google Scholar
  130. Tchernikov, I., & Fallah, M. (2010). A color hierarchy for automatic target selection. PLoS ONE, 5, e9338.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Theys, T., Pani, P., van Loon, J., et al. (2012). Selectivity for three-dimensional shape and grasping-related activity in the macaque ventral premotor cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(35), 12038–12050.Google Scholar
  132. Theys, T., Romero, M. C., van Loon, J., & Janssen, P. (2015). Shape representations in the primate dorsal visual stream. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2015.00043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Tsutsui, K., Sakata, H., Naganuma, T., & Taira, M. (2002). Neural correlates for perception of 3D surface orientation from texture gradient. Science, 298, 409–412.Google Scholar
  134. Tsutsui, K., Taira, M., & Sakata, H. (2005). Neural mechanisms of three-dimensional vision. Neuroscience Research, 51, 221–229.Google Scholar
  135. Turnbull, O. H., Driver, J., & McCarthy, R. A. (2004). 2D but not 3D: Pictorial depth deficits in a case of visual agnosia. Cortex, 40, 723–738.Google Scholar
  136. Valyear, K. F., Culham, J. C., Sharif, N., et al. (2006). A double dissociation between sensitivity to changes in object identity and object orientation in the ventral and dorsal visual streams: A human fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 44, 218–228.Google Scholar
  137. van Polanen, V., & Davare, M. (2015). Interactions between dorsal and ventral streams for controlling skilled grasp. Neuropsychologya, 79, 186–191.Google Scholar
  138. Verhoef, B. E., Michelet, P., Vogels, R., & Janssen, P. (2015). Choice-related activity in the anterior intraparietal area during 3-D structure categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 1104–1115.Google Scholar
  139. Verhoef, B. E., Vogels, R., & Janssen, P. (2011). Synchronization between the end stages of the dorsal and the ventral visual stream. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105(5), 2030–2042.Google Scholar
  140. Vishwanath, D. (2011). Information in surface and depth perception: Reconciling pictures and reality. In L. Albertazzi, G. J. van Tonder, & D. Vishwanath (Eds.), Perception beyond inference. The information content of visual processes (pp. 201–240). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  141. Vishwanath, D. (2014). Toward a new theory of stereopsis. Psychological Review, 121(2), 151–178.Google Scholar
  142. Vishwanath, D., & Hibbard, P. (2010). Quality in depth perception: The plastic effect. Journal of Vision.  https://doi.org/10.1167/10.7.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Vishwanath, D., & Hibbard, P. (2013). Seeing in 3D with just one eye: Stereopsis in the absence of binocular disparities. Psychological Science, 24, 1673–1685.Google Scholar
  144. Voltolini, A. (2013). Why, as responsible for figurativity, seeing-in can only be inflected seeing-in. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 651–667.Google Scholar
  145. Wallhagen, M. (2007). Consciousness and action: Does cognitive science support (mild) epiphenomenalism? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58(3), 539–561.Google Scholar
  146. Webster, M. J., Bachevalier, J., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1994). Connections of inferior temporal areas TEO and TE with parietal and frontal cortex in macaque. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 470–483.Google Scholar
  147. Westwood, D., Danckert, J., Servos, P., & Goodale, M. (2002). Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Experimental Brain Research, 144(2), 262–267.Google Scholar
  148. Wokke, M. E., Scholte, H. S., & Lamme, V. A. F. (2014). Opposing dorsal/ventral stream dynamics during figure-ground segregation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(2), 365–379.Google Scholar
  149. Wollheim, R. (1980). Seeing-as, seeing-in, and pictorial representation. In Art and its object (2nd ed., pp. 205–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  150. Wollheim, R. (1987). Painting as an art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  151. Wollheim, R. (1998). On pictorial representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56, 217–226.Google Scholar
  152. Wu, W. (2014). Against division: Consciousness, information and the visual streams. Mind and Language, 29(4), 383–406.Google Scholar
  153. Xu, Y. (2009). Distinctive neural mechanisms supporting visual object individuation and identification. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 511–518.Google Scholar
  154. Xu, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2009). Selecting and perceiving multiple visual objects. Cell Press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Yeatman, J. D., Weiner, K. S., Pestilli, F., et al. (2014). The vertical occipital fasciculus: A century of controversy resolved by in vivo measurements. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 111, E5214–E5223.Google Scholar
  156. Young, G. (2006). Are different affordances subserved by different neural pathways? Brain and Cognition, 62, 134–142.Google Scholar
  157. Zachariou, V., Klatzky, R., & Behrmann, M. (2014). Ventral and dorsal visual stream contributions to the perception of object shape and object location. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(1), 189–209.Google Scholar
  158. Zanon, M., Busan, P., Monti, F., et al. (2010). Cortical connections between dorsal and ventral visual streams in humans: Evidence by TMS/EEG co-registration. Brain Topography, 22(4), 307–317.Google Scholar
  159. Zipoli Caiani, S., & Ferretti, G. (2016). Semantic and pragmatic integration in vision for action. Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 40–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Lettere e FilosofiaUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations