PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 13677816

Visual imagery in cerebral visual dysfunction.

Giorgio Ganis·William L Thompson·Fred W Mast·Stephen M Kosslyn
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many sorts of deficits in imagery follow brain damage, but the relation between the site of damage and the type of deficit is not simple or straightforward. The dissociations in performance after brain damage provide hints regarding the processing system underlying imagery, but difficulties in interpretation urge caution in mapping these findings to theoretic models. Neuroimaging techniques, such as PET and fMRI, open a window into the working brain and offer valuable information not easily accessible through the study of patients, who, as noted, may have deficits beyond those observable and may rely on compensation and neural reorganization. As we come to understand the mental imagery system more fully, such issues as the laterality of image generation are likely to prove too coarse and vague. The brain is an enormously intricate organ, and even within a circumscribed domain such as imagery it seems to process information in complex and subtle ways.

Explore related subjects

Functional LateralityHumansOccipital LobePerceptual DisordersVisual CortexVisual PerceptionNon-programmaticJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Giorgio Ganis, William L Thompson, Fred W Mast, Stephen M Kosslyn. 2003. Visual imagery in cerebral visual dysfunction.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0733-8619(02)00097-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

When does the visual system use viewpoint-invariant representations during recognition?

One popular model of object recognition claims that the visual system typically describes objects using view-specific representations, but that viewpoint-invariant representations are used when objects can be specified uniquely by the arrangement of parts along a single dimension. In a series of three naming experiments using novel, two-dimensional line drawings, we test this hypothesis against alternative accounts of when viewpoint-invariant representations are used during the recognition of upright and viewplane-rotated objects. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that the number of dimensions along which featural information must be represented is the only stimulus feature that influences the type of representation used, consistent with the Tarr and Pinker model. Experiment 3, however, reveals that the use of viewpoint-invariant representations during recognition is not driven purely by stimulus features, and is at least partly under voluntary control. These data suggest that viewpoint-invariant representations are not automatically invoked by the visual system when the requisite stimulus features are present. Rather, our results suggest that top-down control processes, as well as bottom-up stimulus features, jointly determine the conditions under which the visual system uses viewpoint-invariant representations during visual recognition.

Functional Laterality↗
PubMed2003

Effects of response eccentricity and relative position on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility with joystick and keypress responses.

When unimanual left-right movement responses are made to up-down stimuli, performance is better with the up-right/down-left mapping when responding in the right hemispace and with the up-left/down-right mapping when responding in the left hemispace. We evaluated whether this response eccentricity effect is explained best in terms of rotational properties of the hand (the end-state comfort hypothesis) or asymmetric coding of the stimulus and response alternatives (the salient features coding hypothesis). Experiment 1 showed that bimanual keypresses yield a response eccentricity effect similar to that obtained with unimanual movement responses. In Experiment 2, an inactive response apparatus was placed to the left or right of the active response apparatus to provide a referent. For half of the participants, the active and inactive apparatuses were joysticks, and for half they were response boxes with keys. For both response types, an up-right/down-left advantage was evident when the relative position of the active response apparatus was right but not when it was left. That bimanual keypresses yield similar eccentricity and relative location effects to those for unimanual movements is predicted by the salient features coding perspective but not by the end-state comfort hypothesis.

Functional Laterality↗