Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T08:20:55.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Vision is More than Seeing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Melvyn A. Goodale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Vision is so closely identified with visual phenomenology that we sometimes forget that the visual system does more than deliver our experience of the world. Vision also plays a critical role in the control of our movements, from picking up our coffee cups to playing tennis. But the visual control of movement has, until recently, been relatively neglected. Indeed, traditional accounts of vision, while acknowledging the role of vision in motor control, have simply regarded such control as part of a larger function – that of constructing an internal model of the external world. Even though such accounts might postulate separate ‘modules’ for the processing of different visual features, such as motion, colour, texture, and form, in most of these accounts there is an implicit assumption that, in the end, vision delivers a single representation of the external world – a kind of simulacrum of the real thing that serves as the perceptual foundation for all visually driven thought and action.

Type
III. Vision
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 27: Naturalism, Evolution & Intentionality , 2001 , pp. 186 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aglioti, S.DeSouza, J.F.X. and Goodale, M.A. 1995. “Size-Contrast Illusions Deceive the Eye But Not the Hand,” Current Biology 5, 679–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allman, J.M. 1999. Evolving Brains. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
Bálint, R. 1909. “Seelenlamung des ‘Schauens,’ optische Ataxie, riiumliche Storung der Aufmerksamkeit,” Monatschrift for Psychiatric und Neurologic 25, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bülthoff, H. H. and Edelman, S. 1992. “Psychophysical Support for a Two-Dimensional View Interpolation Theory of Object Recognition,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). Vol. 89, pp. 60–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carey, D.P.Harvey, M. and Milner, A. D. 1996. “Visuomotor Sensitivity for Shape and Orientation in a Patient with Visual Form Agnosia,” Neuropsychologia 34, 329–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crick, F. and Jones, E. 1993. “Backwardness of Human Neuroanatomy,” Nature 361, 109–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewert, J-P. 1987. “Neuroethology of Releasing Mechanisms: Prey-Catching in Toads,” Behavioural Brain Sciences 10, 337–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, M.Tillery, S.I.H. and Soechting, J. F. 1992. “Early Stages in a Sensorimotor Transformation,” Behavioural Brain Sciences 15, 309–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A. 1995. “The Cortical Organization of Visual Perception and Visuomotor Control.” In An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 2, Visual Cognition and Action, 2d ed., Kosslyn, S. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 167–213.Google Scholar
Goodale, M. A. 1996. “Visuomotor Modules in the Vertebrate Brain,” Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 74, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A. and Haffenden, A. 1998. “Frames of Reference for Perception and Action in the Human Visual System,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 22, 161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A. and Humphrey, G. K. 1998. “The Objects of Action and Perception,” Cognition 67, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A.Jakobson, L. S. and Keillor, J. M. 1994. “Differences in the Visual Control of Pantomimed and Natural Grasping Movements,” Neuropsychologia 32, 1159–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A.Meenan, J. P.Bülthoff, H. H.Nicolle, D. AMurphy, K. S. and Racicot, C. I. 1994. “Separate Neural Pathways for the Visual Analysis of Object Shape in Perception and Prehension,” Current Biology 4, 604–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A. and Milner, A D. 1992. “Separate Visual Pathways for Perception and Action,” Trends in Neurosciences 15, 20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A.Milner, A D.Jakobson, L. S. and Carey, D.P. 1991. “A Neurological Dissociation between Perceiving Objects and Grasping Them,” Nature 349, 154–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodale, M. A.Murphy, K.Meenan, J. P.Racicot, C. I. and Nicolle, D. A 1993. “Spared Object Perception but Poor Object-Calibrated Grasping in a Patient with Optic Ataxia,” Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 19, 775.Google Scholar
Gould, J.L. 1982. Ethology: The Mechanisms and Evolution of Behavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Haffenden, A. and Goodale, M. A 1998. “The Effect of Pictorial Illusion on Prehension and Perception,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10, 122–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haffenden, A. and Goodale, M. A 2000. “Independent Effects of Pictorial Displays on Perception and Action,” Vision Research 40, 1597–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, B. and Arbib, M. A 1992. “A Model of the Effects of Speed, Accuracy and Perturbation on Visually Guided Reaching.” In Control of Arm movement in Space: Neurophysiological and Computational Approaches, Caminiti, R.Johnson, P. B. and Bumod, Y. eds. New York: SpringerVerlag, pp. 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Y. and Goodale, M. A 2000. “Grasping after a Delay Shifts Size-Scaling from Absolute to Relative Metrics,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 856–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingle, D.J. 1973. “Two Visual Systems in the Frog,” Science 181, 1053–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingle, D.J. 1982. “Organization of Visuomotor Behaviors in Vertebrates.” In Analysis of Visual Behavior, Ingle, D. J.Goodale, M. A and Mansfield, R.J.W. eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 67–109.Google Scholar
Ingle, D.J. 1991. “Functions of Subcortical Visual Systems in Vertebrates and the Evolution of Higher Visual Mechanisms.” In Vision and Visual Dysfunction, Vol. 2, Evolution of the Eye and Visual System, Gregory, R. L. and Cronly-Dillon, J. eds. London: Macmillan, pp. 152–64.Google Scholar
Jackson, J.H. 1875. Clinical and Physiological Researches on the Nervous System. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Jakobson, L. S.Archibald, Y. M.Carey, D.P. and Goodale, M.A. 1991. “A Kinematic Analysis of Reaching and Grasping Movements in a Patient Recovering from Optic Ataxia,” Neuropsychologia 29, 803–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeannerod, M. 1988. The Neural and Behavioural Organization of Goal-directed Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeannerod, M. 1997. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jeannerod, M.Decety, J. and Michel, F. 1994. “Impairment of Grasping Movements Following Bilateral Posterior Parietal Lesion,” Neuropsychologia 32, 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Milner, A.D. and Goodale, M.A. 1995. The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milner, A.D.Perrett, D. I.Johnston, R. S.Benson, P. J.Jordan, T. R.Heeley, D. W.Bettucci, D.Mortara, F.Mutani, R.Terazzi, E. and Davidson, D.L.W. 1991. “Perception and Action in Visual Form Agnosia,” Brain 114, 405–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, S.Rosch, E. and Chase, P. 1981. “Canonical Perspective and the Perception of Objects.” In Attention and Performance IX, Long, J. and Baddeley, A. eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 135–51.Google Scholar
Patla, A. and Goodale, M.A. 1997. “Visuomotor Transformation Required for Obstacle Avoidance During Locomotion Is Unaffected in a Patient with Visual Form Agnosia,” NeuroReport 8, 165–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perenin, M.-T. and Rossetti, Y. 1996. “Grasping without Form Discrimination in a Hemianopic Field,” Neuroreport 7, 793–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perenin, M.-T. and Vighetto, A. 1988. “Optic Ataxia: A Specific Disruption in Visuomotor Mechanisms. I. Different Aspects of the Deficit in Reaching for Objects,” Brain 111, 643–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, W. 1973. “Dissociation of Spatial Discrimination Deficits following Frontal and Parietal Lesions in Monkeys,” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 82, 227–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pook, P.K. and Ballard, D. H. 1996. “Deictic Human/Robot interaction,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 18, 259–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servos, P.Goodale, M.A. and Humphrey, G. K. 1993. “The Drawing of Objects by a Visual Form Agnosic: Contribution of Surface Properties and Memorial Representations,” Neuropsychologia 31, 251–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servos, P.Matin, L. and Goodale, M.A. 1995. “Dissociations between Two Forms of Spatial Processing by a Visual Form Agnosic,” NeuroReport 6, 1893–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, L.H.Batista, A. P. and Andersen, R. A. 2000. “Intention-Related Activity in the Posterior Parietal Cortex: A Review,” Vision Research 40, 1433–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J.F. 1992. “The Representation of Egocentric Space in the Posterior Parietal Cortex,” Behavioural Brain Sciences 15, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tootell, R.B.Dale, A.M.Sereno, M. I. and Malach, R. 1996. “New Images from Human Visual Cortex,” Trends in Neurosciences 19, 481–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerleider, L.G. and Brody, B. A. 1977. “Extrapersonal Spatial Orientation: the Role of Posterior Parietal, Anterior Frontal, and Inferotemporal Cortex,” Experimental Neurology 56, 265–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerleider, L.G. and Mishkin, M. 1982. “Two Cortical Visual Systems.” In Analysis of Visual Behavior, Ingle, D. J.Goodale, M.A. and Mansfield, R.J.W. eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 549–86.Google Scholar
Xing, J. and Andersen, R. A. 2000. “Models of the Posterior Parietal Cortex which Perform Multimodal Integration and Represent Space in Several Coordinate Frames,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, 601–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeki, S. 1993. A Vision of the Brain. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar