Literature DB >> 24657477

Delayed action does not always require the ventral stream: a study on a patient with visual form agnosia.

Constanze Hesse1, Thomas Schenk2.   

Abstract

It has been suggested that while movements directed at visible targets are processed within the dorsal stream, movements executed after delay rely on the visual representations of the ventral stream (Milner & Goodale, 2006). This interpretation is supported by the observation that a patient with ventral stream damage (D.F.) has trouble performing accurate movements after a delay, but performs normally when the target is visible during movement programming. We tested D.F.'s visuomotor performance in a letter-posting task whilst varying the amount of visual feedback available. Additionally, we also varied whether D.F. received tactile feedback at the end of each trial (posting through a letter box vs posting on a screen) and whether environmental cues were available during the delay period (removing the target only vs suppressing vision completely with shutter glasses). We found that in the absence of environmental cues patient D.F. was unaffected by the introduction of delay and performed as accurately as healthy controls. However, when environmental cues and vision of the moving hand were available during and after the delay period, D.F.'s visuomotor performance was impaired. Thus, while healthy controls benefit from the availability of environmental landmarks and/or visual feedback of the moving hand, such cues seem less beneficial to D.F. Taken together our findings suggest that ventral stream damage does not always impact the ability to make delayed movements but compromises the ability to use environmental landmarks and visual feedback efficiently.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Delay; Patient D.F.; Perception–action model; Posting; Visual form agnosia

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24657477     DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.02.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  5 in total

1.  Pantomime-grasping: the 'return' of haptic feedback supports the absolute specification of object size.

Authors:  Shirin Davarpanah Jazi; Michelle Yau; David A Westwood; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  A computational examination of the two-streams hypothesis: which pathway needs a longer memory?

Authors:  Abolfazl Alipour; John M Beggs; Joshua W Brown; Thomas W James
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 3.  The Two Visual Systems Hypothesis: New Challenges and Insights from Visual form Agnosic Patient DF.

Authors:  Robert L Whitwell; A David Milner; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 4.003

4.  The Pointing Errors in Optic Ataxia Reveal the Role of "Peripheral Magnification" of the PPC.

Authors:  Philippe Vindras; Annabelle Blangero; Hisaaki Ota; Karen T Reilly; Yves Rossetti; Laure Pisella
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2016-07-26

5.  Information generation as a functional basis of consciousness.

Authors:  Ryota Kanai; Acer Chang; Yen Yu; Ildefons Magrans de Abril; Martin Biehl; Nicholas Guttenberg
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2019-11-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.