Action relations, semantic relations, and familiarity of spatial position in Balint's syndrome: Crossover effects on perceptual report and on localization

Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 236-245

  Humphreys, Glyn W ^a   Riddoch, M Jane ^a   Fortt, Helen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BALINT SYNDROME; BRAIN DAMAGE; CASE REPORT; COGNITION; COGNITIVE DEFECT; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; MOTION; OBJECT RELATION; PERCEPTION; PLACE PREFERENCE; SEMANTIC MEMORY; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL ORIENTATION;

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL DISORDERS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; SPACE PERCEPTION; SYNDROME;

EID: 33845924667     PISSN: 15307026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/CABN.6.3.236     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. BIEDERMAN, I., MEZZANOTTE, R. J., & RABINOWITZ, J. C. (1982). Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 143-177.
2. CINEL, C., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2006). On the relations between implicit and explicit spatial binding: Evidence from Balint's syndrome. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 127-140.
3. COOPER, A. C. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2000). Coding space within but not between objects: Evidence from Balint's syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 38, 723-733.
4. GIBSON, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
5. GILCHRIST, I. D., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (1996). Grouping and extinction: Evidence for low-level modulation of visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1223-1249.
6. GRÈZES, J., & DECETY, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 212-222.
7. GRÈZES, J., TUCKER, M., ARMONY, J., ELLIS, R., & PASSINGHAM, R. E. (2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMRI study of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 2735-2740.
8. HALL, D. A., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & COOPER, A. C. G. (2001). Neuropsychological evidence for case-specific reading: Multi-letter units in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 439-467.
9. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (2003a). From vision to action and action to vision: A convergent route approach to vision, action, and attention. In D. E. Irwin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Cognitive vision: The psychology of learning and motivation. (Vol. 42, pp. 226-264). New York: Academic Press.
10. HUMPHREYS, G. W., & RIDDOCH, M. J. (2003b). From what to where: Neuropsychological evidence for implicit interactions between object-and space-based attention. Psychological Science, 14, 487-492.
11. HUMPHREYS, G. W., ROMANI, C., OLSON, A., RIDDOCH, M. J., & DUNCAN, J. (1994). Non-spatial extinction following lesions of the parietal lobe in humans. Nature, 372, 357-359.
12. KARNATH, H.-O. (1988). Deficits of attention in acute and recovered visual hemi-neglect. Neuropsychologia, 26, 27-43.
13. KUMADA, T., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2001). Lexical recovery from extinction: Interactions between visual form and stored knowledge modulate visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 465-478.
14. MATTINGLEY, J. B., DAVIS, G., & DRIVER, J. (1997). Preattentive filling-in of visual surfaces in parietal extinction. Science, 275, 671-674.
15. PHILLIPS, J., HUMPHREYS, G. W., NOPPENEY, U., & PRICE, C. J. (2002). The neural substrates of action retrieval: An examination of semantic and visual routes to action. Visual Cognition, 9, 662-684.
16. RIDDOCH, M. J., HUMPHREYS, G. W., EDWARDS, S., BAKER, T., & WILLSON, K. (2003). Actions glue objects but associations glue words: Neuropsychological evidence for multiple object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 82-89.
17. ROBERTSON, L., TREISMAN, A., FRIEDMAN- HILL, S., & GRABOWECKY, M. (1997). The interaction of spatial and object pathways: Evidence from Balint's syndrome. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 295-317.
18. RUMIATI, R. I., WEISS, P. H., SHALLICE, T., OTTOBONI, G., NOTH, J., ZILLES, K., & FINK, G. R. (2004). Neural basis of pantomiming the use of visually presented objects. NeuroImage, 21, 1224-1231.
19. SINGER, W., & GRAY, C. M. (1995). Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 555-586.
20. TREISMAN, A. (1988). Features and objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201-237.
21. TREISMAN, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 353, 1295-1306.
22. TREISMAN, A., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
23. WARD, R., GOODRICH, S., & DRIVER, J. (1994). Grouping reduces visual extinction: Neuropsychological evidence for weight-linkage in visual selection. Visual Cognition, 1, 101-129.