Db replies 525 & 575

DBReplies575.docx

Tyler Peer 1

When Goodale and Humphrey stated referenced Weimer (1977) that there is a preoccupation with vision as sight, they were effectively stating that vision is much more than what we physically see with our eyes. However, Goodale and Humphrey argue that stating that vision only refers to the visual experience would be grossly understating what vision is. Vision’s primary purpose is to guide the individual through the world rather than just see it.

Ungerleider and Mishkin believed that the ventral stream was used for object vision and identification where the dorsal stream is used to understand a location of an object. They made a distinct line regarding identification and localization. Goodale and Humphrey believed that the dorsal stream as used not only for location but also used for controlling movements. The ventral stream constructs the perceived world and the objects within it.

Regarding, the dorsal stream Goodale and Humphrey looked at individuals who had significant brain injuries that only effected either the dorsal or the ventral but not both. Those patients whose posterior parietal cortex had been damaged, which is where the dorsal stream is found, were unable to interact with the objects around them by using visual information. The patients were able to use other senses to interact with the object and they seemingly had zero issues with identifying the object and its properties. This view on the dorsal stream is confirmed by Wang et al., 1999 where it was found that, the “Occipitoparietal pathway functions for perceiving special aspects of stimuli, such as direction of motion and velocity” (p.171).

Those studied involving damage to the ventral stream did not display any issues with motor activities that rely on sight. However, when examining a patient that suffered neurological damage to their ventral stream, the patient was unable to recognize faces of relatives from sight alone. They were able to recognize family members when relying on other senses therefore confirming that the problem was with the ventral stream relating to vision and not more widespread. Regarding shapes, the patient was unable to identify the difference in shapes relying on vision alone. However, they could recognize them if they were to feel them.

The findings that the ventral system is used for recognizing objects and being able to identify them when relying on vision alone was also proved by Ludwig et al. (2016), stating, “Decidability exhibited the same linear decrease as our measures of stimulus awareness, thus confirming the tight coupling of ventral stream processing and visual awareness.” (p.121).

The Tripartite man and evolutionary theory suggest that both vision perception and control of action are interrelated. With the Tripartite man approach, provided that the mind is healthy than the body will be as well. This is a more holistic view that states that physical and mental health are interconnected (Busseri, 2010). Where the evolutionary theory would suggest that a motor response based on visual stimuli is due to the way the brain was organized during the evolutionary process.

Understanding that vision is much more than just sight has changed my perspective when thinking about vision. There reality is that vision is just a small portion of who we interact with the world around us and acts more as a guide rather than the definitive answer when perceiving individual stimuli. While I cannot change how I use my vision in day to day life, it is interesting to know that there more than likely an overreliance on the use of vision for perceiving and interacting with the world around me.

References

Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2010). A review of the tripartite Structure of Subjective Well-Being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67(1–2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00017-1Links to an external site.

Ludwig, K., Sterzer, P., Kathmann, N., & Hesselmann, G. (2016). Differential modulation of visual object processing in dorsal and ventral stream by stimulus visibility. Cortex, 83, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.002

Wang, D. J., Zhou, T., Qiu, M., Du, A., Cai, K., Wang, Z., Zhou, C., Meng, M., Zhuo, Y., Fan, S., & Chen, L. (1999). Relationship between ventral stream for object vision and dorsal stream for spatial vision: An fMRI+ERP study. Human Brain Mapping, 8(4), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4

Tara Peer2

What Goodale and Humphrey mean by “the field’s preoccupation with vision as sight?" in their article published in 1998 is that vision functions like a window receiving data from the environment. The data is transferred into the brain thought the two visual streams: the dorsal stream and the ventral stream. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Goodale and Humphrey’s view of the ventral and dorsal visual stream as functioning at the same time and are correlated with one another when it comes to input output of perceived information. The ventral stream receiving information from the primary visual cortex to the inferotemporal cortex. The dorsal stream receiving information from the primary visual cortex to the posterior parietal cortex. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Whereas the earlier theory of Ungerleider and Mishkin in 1982 view the ventral and dorsal visual stream as one stream having higher levels of neuronal activity than the other. They found that inputs from the central vision are more important that those of the peripheral vison. (Mishkin & Ungerleider, 1982).

The evidence presented by Goodale and Humphrey to support their view is that neuronal activity is found not only in the act of seeing an object and recognizing it but also seeing where that object is in space in order for us to grasp it. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Learning about the brain’s two separate visual systems has changed the way I think about my own visual experience by considering the three different perspectives of this discussion prompt. I feel the I can agree with all three. I see how multiple functions of the brain work simultaneously perceiving different aspects of the exterior world and concluding an output that is determined by the multiple functions working together. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998). But I also agree with the findings that support that there is a hierarchy of streams where one is working more on interpreting the exterior world than another stream depending on the circumstances of what we are visually experiencing. (Mishkin & Ungerleider, 1982). I can also agree from a personal religious perspective that our body is just a vessel. Our body is a tool for the Lord to work through us. So I agree that the body and all its visual functioning can be viewed as separate from our mind when it comes to perception. (Calkins, 1990). I personally think that all three of these perspectives are possible.

Goodale and Humphrey’s view on the evolutionary approach to the function of the brain’s two visual stream is described as how in the past the visual experience was thought of as two completely separate functions but is now becoming more complex in terms of the ways the two visual streams interact. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

In, contrast, the Tripartite Man’s approach is described as viewing the body as “the outer man”. That our body is a vessel perceiving the outside world or our mind and soul to interpret. This theory is stated to not be a view of three separate entities of man but views them as the unity of man. (Calkins, 1990).

References

Calkins, A. B. (1990). The Tripartite Biblical Vision of Man: A Key to the Christian Life. Doctor

Communis, 43(2), 135-159.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/biblanth.htmLinks to an external site.

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and

perception. Cognition, 67(1-2), 181-207.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027798000171Links to an external site.

Mishkin, M., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1982). Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial

functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behavioural brain research, 6(1), 57-77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016643288290081XLinks to an external site.

DBReply525.docx

Tess Peer 1

From a Biblical perspective, why should a person consider studying developmental psychology?

According to our course text, developmental psychology looks at things such as the basic nature of humans, how and what they develop over time, and if that development is qualitative or quantitative, as well as how nature and nurture influence that development. If you think about it, the Bible also looks at and talks about similar things. Jesus himself often spoke on the nature of man, and how our faith starts in infancy and grows as a human does, going through the stages of child to adult. If we want to know and understand the mechanisms of what make a person act or think the way they do, we have the Bible as a reference, but we also have the counterpart to the Bible, God’s creation. Francis Bacon, widely considered the father of the scientific method, first introduced the concept of the duality of the two books that are laid before us to study: those being the book of God’s Word, which is scripture, and the book of God’s Works, which is creation. He also thought that no one should rely solely on one or the other but utilize both in order to truly learn. If we follow that logic, we can use the Bible to learn what God has said about a human’s development, but we can also study developmental psychology as a branch of science. The two can work together, as allies, and strengthen each other. Just as scripture is reinforced by creation, what the Bible says about psychology is reinforced by the scientific study of it and vice versa. After all, all truth is God’s truth. If something is true, it is because God made it so.

Biblically speaking, there are a variety of verses that support seeking wisdom and understanding. For example, Proverbs 16:16 (New International Version [NIV], 2011) says that having wisdom and understanding is better than having silver or gold and Proverbs 18:15 (NIV, 2011) says that an intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. Similarly, 2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV, 2011) says that we should study and show God that we understand truth. If a person is wanting to understand how we as humans develop psychologically, the Bible itself advocates for endeavoring to gain that wisdom and understanding. The benefits of gaining that knowledge can also be utilized to help other people in turn understand human development. This could be useful for someone to understand themselves, their children or family, or even in their jobs. It helps to expand their worldview and deepen their understanding of how God created each of us. It can also help us to improve lives by utilizing what we learn through our studying. When we understand the components of developmental psychology, we can help others by providing them with an understanding of what it means to be human, as well as ways to optimize the function of developmental psychology in their lives. We can do this by hopefully providing healing and hope to people who are in need of both. Thus, when we couple the study of developmental psychology with that of theology, or the studying of God’s Word and His nature, we can form a more holistic approach to our knowledge and understanding.

References

New International Version. (2011). Bible Gateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/

DBReplies575.docx

Tyler Peer 1

When Goodale and Humphrey stated referenced Weimer (1977) that there is a preoccupation with vision as sight, they were effectively stating that vision is much more than what we physically see with our eyes. However, Goodale and Humphrey argue that stating that vision only refers to the visual experience would be grossly understating what vision is. Vision’s primary purpose is to guide the individual through the world rather than just see it.

Ungerleider and Mishkin believed that the ventral stream was used for object vision and identification where the dorsal stream is used to understand a location of an object. They made a distinct line regarding identification and localization. Goodale and Humphrey believed that the dorsal stream as used not only for location but also used for controlling movements. The ventral stream constructs the perceived world and the objects within it.

Regarding, the dorsal stream Goodale and Humphrey looked at individuals who had significant brain injuries that only effected either the dorsal or the ventral but not both. Those patients whose posterior parietal cortex had been damaged, which is where the dorsal stream is found, were unable to interact with the objects around them by using visual information. The patients were able to use other senses to interact with the object and they seemingly had zero issues with identifying the object and its properties. This view on the dorsal stream is confirmed by Wang et al., 1999 where it was found that, the “Occipitoparietal pathway functions for perceiving special aspects of stimuli, such as direction of motion and velocity” (p.171).

Those studied involving damage to the ventral stream did not display any issues with motor activities that rely on sight. However, when examining a patient that suffered neurological damage to their ventral stream, the patient was unable to recognize faces of relatives from sight alone. They were able to recognize family members when relying on other senses therefore confirming that the problem was with the ventral stream relating to vision and not more widespread. Regarding shapes, the patient was unable to identify the difference in shapes relying on vision alone. However, they could recognize them if they were to feel them.

The findings that the ventral system is used for recognizing objects and being able to identify them when relying on vision alone was also proved by Ludwig et al. (2016), stating, “Decidability exhibited the same linear decrease as our measures of stimulus awareness, thus confirming the tight coupling of ventral stream processing and visual awareness.” (p.121).

The Tripartite man and evolutionary theory suggest that both vision perception and control of action are interrelated. With the Tripartite man approach, provided that the mind is healthy than the body will be as well. This is a more holistic view that states that physical and mental health are interconnected (Busseri, 2010). Where the evolutionary theory would suggest that a motor response based on visual stimuli is due to the way the brain was organized during the evolutionary process.

Understanding that vision is much more than just sight has changed my perspective when thinking about vision. There reality is that vision is just a small portion of who we interact with the world around us and acts more as a guide rather than the definitive answer when perceiving individual stimuli. While I cannot change how I use my vision in day to day life, it is interesting to know that there more than likely an overreliance on the use of vision for perceiving and interacting with the world around me.

References

Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2010). A review of the tripartite Structure of Subjective Well-Being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67(1–2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00017-1Links to an external site.

Ludwig, K., Sterzer, P., Kathmann, N., & Hesselmann, G. (2016). Differential modulation of visual object processing in dorsal and ventral stream by stimulus visibility. Cortex, 83, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.002

Wang, D. J., Zhou, T., Qiu, M., Du, A., Cai, K., Wang, Z., Zhou, C., Meng, M., Zhuo, Y., Fan, S., & Chen, L. (1999). Relationship between ventral stream for object vision and dorsal stream for spatial vision: An fMRI+ERP study. Human Brain Mapping, 8(4), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4

Tara Peer2

What Goodale and Humphrey mean by “the field’s preoccupation with vision as sight?" in their article published in 1998 is that vision functions like a window receiving data from the environment. The data is transferred into the brain thought the two visual streams: the dorsal stream and the ventral stream. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Goodale and Humphrey’s view of the ventral and dorsal visual stream as functioning at the same time and are correlated with one another when it comes to input output of perceived information. The ventral stream receiving information from the primary visual cortex to the inferotemporal cortex. The dorsal stream receiving information from the primary visual cortex to the posterior parietal cortex. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Whereas the earlier theory of Ungerleider and Mishkin in 1982 view the ventral and dorsal visual stream as one stream having higher levels of neuronal activity than the other. They found that inputs from the central vision are more important that those of the peripheral vison. (Mishkin & Ungerleider, 1982).

The evidence presented by Goodale and Humphrey to support their view is that neuronal activity is found not only in the act of seeing an object and recognizing it but also seeing where that object is in space in order for us to grasp it. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Learning about the brain’s two separate visual systems has changed the way I think about my own visual experience by considering the three different perspectives of this discussion prompt. I feel the I can agree with all three. I see how multiple functions of the brain work simultaneously perceiving different aspects of the exterior world and concluding an output that is determined by the multiple functions working together. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998). But I also agree with the findings that support that there is a hierarchy of streams where one is working more on interpreting the exterior world than another stream depending on the circumstances of what we are visually experiencing. (Mishkin & Ungerleider, 1982). I can also agree from a personal religious perspective that our body is just a vessel. Our body is a tool for the Lord to work through us. So I agree that the body and all its visual functioning can be viewed as separate from our mind when it comes to perception. (Calkins, 1990). I personally think that all three of these perspectives are possible.

Goodale and Humphrey’s view on the evolutionary approach to the function of the brain’s two visual stream is described as how in the past the visual experience was thought of as two completely separate functions but is now becoming more complex in terms of the ways the two visual streams interact. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

In, contrast, the Tripartite Man’s approach is described as viewing the body as “the outer man”. That our body is a vessel perceiving the outside world or our mind and soul to interpret. This theory is stated to not be a view of three separate entities of man but views them as the unity of man. (Calkins, 1990).

References

Calkins, A. B. (1990). The Tripartite Biblical Vision of Man: A Key to the Christian Life. Doctor

Communis, 43(2), 135-159.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/biblanth.htmLinks to an external site.

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and

perception. Cognition, 67(1-2), 181-207.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027798000171Links to an external site.

Mishkin, M., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1982). Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial

functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behavioural brain research, 6(1), 57-77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016643288290081XLinks to an external site.

DBReply525.docx

Tess Peer 1

From a Biblical perspective, why should a person consider studying developmental psychology?

According to our course text, developmental psychology looks at things such as the basic nature of humans, how and what they develop over time, and if that development is qualitative or quantitative, as well as how nature and nurture influence that development. If you think about it, the Bible also looks at and talks about similar things. Jesus himself often spoke on the nature of man, and how our faith starts in infancy and grows as a human does, going through the stages of child to adult. If we want to know and understand the mechanisms of what make a person act or think the way they do, we have the Bible as a reference, but we also have the counterpart to the Bible, God’s creation. Francis Bacon, widely considered the father of the scientific method, first introduced the concept of the duality of the two books that are laid before us to study: those being the book of God’s Word, which is scripture, and the book of God’s Works, which is creation. He also thought that no one should rely solely on one or the other but utilize both in order to truly learn. If we follow that logic, we can use the Bible to learn what God has said about a human’s development, but we can also study developmental psychology as a branch of science. The two can work together, as allies, and strengthen each other. Just as scripture is reinforced by creation, what the Bible says about psychology is reinforced by the scientific study of it and vice versa. After all, all truth is God’s truth. If something is true, it is because God made it so.

Biblically speaking, there are a variety of verses that support seeking wisdom and understanding. For example, Proverbs 16:16 (New International Version [NIV], 2011) says that having wisdom and understanding is better than having silver or gold and Proverbs 18:15 (NIV, 2011) says that an intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. Similarly, 2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV, 2011) says that we should study and show God that we understand truth. If a person is wanting to understand how we as humans develop psychologically, the Bible itself advocates for endeavoring to gain that wisdom and understanding. The benefits of gaining that knowledge can also be utilized to help other people in turn understand human development. This could be useful for someone to understand themselves, their children or family, or even in their jobs. It helps to expand their worldview and deepen their understanding of how God created each of us. It can also help us to improve lives by utilizing what we learn through our studying. When we understand the components of developmental psychology, we can help others by providing them with an understanding of what it means to be human, as well as ways to optimize the function of developmental psychology in their lives. We can do this by hopefully providing healing and hope to people who are in need of both. Thus, when we couple the study of developmental psychology with that of theology, or the studying of God’s Word and His nature, we can form a more holistic approach to our knowledge and understanding.

References

New International Version. (2011). Bible Gateway. https://www.biblegateway.com/

DBReplies575.docx

Tyler Peer 1

When Goodale and Humphrey stated referenced Weimer (1977) that there is a preoccupation with vision as sight, they were effectively stating that vision is much more than what we physically see with our eyes. However, Goodale and Humphrey argue that stating that vision only refers to the visual experience would be grossly understating what vision is. Vision’s primary purpose is to guide the individual through the world rather than just see it.

Ungerleider and Mishkin believed that the ventral stream was used for object vision and identification where the dorsal stream is used to understand a location of an object. They made a distinct line regarding identification and localization. Goodale and Humphrey believed that the dorsal stream as used not only for location but also used for controlling movements. The ventral stream constructs the perceived world and the objects within it.

Regarding, the dorsal stream Goodale and Humphrey looked at individuals who had significant brain injuries that only effected either the dorsal or the ventral but not both. Those patients whose posterior parietal cortex had been damaged, which is where the dorsal stream is found, were unable to interact with the objects around them by using visual information. The patients were able to use other senses to interact with the object and they seemingly had zero issues with identifying the object and its properties. This view on the dorsal stream is confirmed by Wang et al., 1999 where it was found that, the “Occipitoparietal pathway functions for perceiving special aspects of stimuli, such as direction of motion and velocity” (p.171).

Those studied involving damage to the ventral stream did not display any issues with motor activities that rely on sight. However, when examining a patient that suffered neurological damage to their ventral stream, the patient was unable to recognize faces of relatives from sight alone. They were able to recognize family members when relying on other senses therefore confirming that the problem was with the ventral stream relating to vision and not more widespread. Regarding shapes, the patient was unable to identify the difference in shapes relying on vision alone. However, they could recognize them if they were to feel them.

The findings that the ventral system is used for recognizing objects and being able to identify them when relying on vision alone was also proved by Ludwig et al. (2016), stating, “Decidability exhibited the same linear decrease as our measures of stimulus awareness, thus confirming the tight coupling of ventral stream processing and visual awareness.” (p.121).

The Tripartite man and evolutionary theory suggest that both vision perception and control of action are interrelated. With the Tripartite man approach, provided that the mind is healthy than the body will be as well. This is a more holistic view that states that physical and mental health are interconnected (Busseri, 2010). Where the evolutionary theory would suggest that a motor response based on visual stimuli is due to the way the brain was organized during the evolutionary process.

Understanding that vision is much more than just sight has changed my perspective when thinking about vision. There reality is that vision is just a small portion of who we interact with the world around us and acts more as a guide rather than the definitive answer when perceiving individual stimuli. While I cannot change how I use my vision in day to day life, it is interesting to know that there more than likely an overreliance on the use of vision for perceiving and interacting with the world around me.

References

Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2010). A review of the tripartite Structure of Subjective Well-Being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67(1–2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00017-1Links to an external site.

Ludwig, K., Sterzer, P., Kathmann, N., & Hesselmann, G. (2016). Differential modulation of visual object processing in dorsal and ventral stream by stimulus visibility. Cortex, 83, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.002

Wang, D. J., Zhou, T., Qiu, M., Du, A., Cai, K., Wang, Z., Zhou, C., Meng, M., Zhuo, Y., Fan, S., & Chen, L. (1999). Relationship between ventral stream for object vision and dorsal stream for spatial vision: An fMRI+ERP study. Human Brain Mapping, 8(4), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4

Tara Peer2

What Goodale and Humphrey mean by “the field’s preoccupation with vision as sight?" in their article published in 1998 is that vision functions like a window receiving data from the environment. The data is transferred into the brain thought the two visual streams: the dorsal stream and the ventral stream. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Goodale and Humphrey’s view of the ventral and dorsal visual stream as functioning at the same time and are correlated with one another when it comes to input output of perceived information. The ventral stream receiving information from the primary visual cortex to the inferotemporal cortex. The dorsal stream receiving information from the primary visual cortex to the posterior parietal cortex. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Whereas the earlier theory of Ungerleider and Mishkin in 1982 view the ventral and dorsal visual stream as one stream having higher levels of neuronal activity than the other. They found that inputs from the central vision are more important that those of the peripheral vison. (Mishkin & Ungerleider, 1982).

The evidence presented by Goodale and Humphrey to support their view is that neuronal activity is found not only in the act of seeing an object and recognizing it but also seeing where that object is in space in order for us to grasp it. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

Learning about the brain’s two separate visual systems has changed the way I think about my own visual experience by considering the three different perspectives of this discussion prompt. I feel the I can agree with all three. I see how multiple functions of the brain work simultaneously perceiving different aspects of the exterior world and concluding an output that is determined by the multiple functions working together. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998). But I also agree with the findings that support that there is a hierarchy of streams where one is working more on interpreting the exterior world than another stream depending on the circumstances of what we are visually experiencing. (Mishkin & Ungerleider, 1982). I can also agree from a personal religious perspective that our body is just a vessel. Our body is a tool for the Lord to work through us. So I agree that the body and all its visual functioning can be viewed as separate from our mind when it comes to perception. (Calkins, 1990). I personally think that all three of these perspectives are possible.

Goodale and Humphrey’s view on the evolutionary approach to the function of the brain’s two visual stream is described as how in the past the visual experience was thought of as two completely separate functions but is now becoming more complex in terms of the ways the two visual streams interact. (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998).

In, contrast, the Tripartite Man’s approach is described as viewing the body as “the outer man”. That our body is a vessel perceiving the outside world or our mind and soul to interpret. This theory is stated to not be a view of three separate entities of man but views them as the unity of man. (Calkins, 1990).

References

Calkins, A. B. (1990). The Tripartite Biblical Vision of Man: A Key to the Christian Life. Doctor

Communis, 43(2), 135-159.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/biblanth.htmLinks to an external site.

Goodale, M. A., & Humphrey, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and

perception. Cognition, 67(1-2), 181-207.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027798000171Links to an external site.

Mishkin, M., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1982). Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial

functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behavioural brain research, 6(1), 57-77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016643288290081XLinks to an external site.

DBReply525.docx

DBReplies575.docx

DBReply525.docx

DBReplies575.docx

DBReply525.docx