Show Reference: "Separate visual pathways for perception and action"

Separate visual pathways for perception and action Trends in Neurosciences, Vol. 15, No. 1. (January 1992), pp. 20-25, doi:10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8 by Melvyn A. Goodale, Milner
    abstract = {Accumulating neuropsychological, electrophysiological and behavioural evidence suggests that the neural substrates of visual perception may be quite distinct from those underlying the visual control of actions. In other words, the set of object descriptions that permit identification and recognition may be computed independently of the set of descriptions that allow an observer to shape the hand appropriately to pick up an object. We propose that the ventral stream of projections from the striate cortex to the inferotemporal cortex plays the major role in the perceptual identification of objects, while the dorsal stream projecting from the striate cortex to the posterior parietal region mediates the required sensorimotor transformations for visually guided actions directed at such objects.},
    author = {Goodale, Melvyn A. and Milner},
    doi = {10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8},
    issn = {01662236},
    journal = {Trends in Neurosciences},
    keywords = {action, illusion, perception, representations},
    month = jan,
    number = {1},
    pages = {20--25},
    posted-at = {2013-07-04 17:39:59},
    priority = {2},
    title = {Separate visual pathways for perception and action},
    url = {},
    volume = {15},
    year = {1992}

See the CiteULike entry for more info, PDF links, BibTex etc.

A traditional model of visual processing for perception and action proposes that the two tasks rely on different visual representations. This model explains the weak effect of visual illusions like the Müller-Lyer illuson on performance in grasping tasks.

Foster et al. challenge the methodology used in a previous study by Dewar and Carey which supports the perception and action model of visual processing due to Goodale and Milner.

They do that by changing the closed visual-action loop in Dewar and Carey's study into an open one by removing visual feedback at motion onset. The result is that the effect of the illusion is there for grasping (which it wasn't in the closed-loop condition) but not (as strongly) for manual object size estimation.

Foster et al. argue that this suggests that the effect found in Dewar and Carey's study is due to continuous visual feedback.