Hmmm...interesting..vague sense I've heard something like this before,
but I thank you for these specific references (you're pretty good at
locating such things--lot's of examples ove the time I've been reading
this newsgroup!).
Wonder if thres an application to (theooretical) problems of unilateral
neglect: I've alwys rejected the idea of line bisection as a proxy for
straight-forward neglect measures (e.g. my own ORTVIN, Oral Test of
Visual Neglect--a non-cancellation analogue of cancellation tests).
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <932869376.481218 at server.australia.net.au> "John"
<johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:
>>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message
<7nd0vq$mtd at dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>My own small effort along these lines has been construction of FIST
>>(Face In Space Test) which Dr. Elena Kumkova and I presented at the
INS
>>meeting in Seattle a few years ago--an effort to measure "what"
>>(ventral stream) and "where" (dorsal stream) visual memoruy
separately
>>but concurrently (apparently successful, judging by follow up study
by
>>others using left vs. right temporal lobe epilepsy patients).
>>>Reminded me of another unread link, precis of a book covering this
idea. I
>can't determine its veracity but found it very interesting. The link
is for
>Psyche,
>>"The Visual Brain in Action"
>>>PRECIS OF: A. David Milner and Melvyn A. Goodale The Visual Brain in
Action
>(Oxford Psychology Series, No. 27). Oxford University Press, xvii +
248pp.
>ISBN: 0198524080. Price: $35.00 pbk.
>>http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v4/psyche-4-12-milner.html>>A few extracts to indicate the line of thinking ... .
>>"Thus, the different patterns of behavior exhibited by vertebrates,
from
>catching prey to avoiding obstacles, can be shown to depend on
independent
>pathways from the visual receptors through to the motor nuclei, each
pathway
>processing a particular constellation of inputs and each evoking a
>particular combination of effector outputs."
>>"Although the evidence available at the time fitted well with
Ungerleider
>and Mishkin's proposal, recent findings from a broad range of studies
in
>both humans and monkeys are more consistent with a distinction not
between
>subdomains of perception, but between perception on the one hand and
the
>guidance of action on the other."
>>"Similarly, under appropriate circumstances geometric illusions can be
seen
>to affect visually-guided reaching (Gentilucci et al., 1996) and
grasping
>(Aglioti et al., 1995; Brenner & Smeets, 1996; Haffenden & Goodale,
1998)
>far less than they affect our perceptual judgements. Thus, we may
perceive
>an object as bigger than it really is, but we open our finger-thumb
grip
>veridically when reaching for it."
>>There is also a discussion of same in following volume of psyche, go
to
>>http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/>>Vol 5 at top.
>>Quite a lengthy discussion!
>>>>John
>Remove XXXX in reply address
>>
