1932
0

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 74, 2023

Rethinking Vision and Action

  • Ken Nakayama1, Jeff Moher2 and Joo-Hyun Song3
  • 1Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA; email: [email protected] 2Department of Psychology, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, USA; email: [email protected] 3Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA; email: [email protected]
  • Vol. 74:59-86 (Volume publication date January 2023)
  • Copyright © 2023 by the author(s).
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Abstract

Action is an important arbitrator as to whether an individual or a species will survive. Yet, action has not been well integrated into the study of psychology. Action or motor behavior is a field apart. This is traditional science with its need for specialization. The sequence in a typical laboratory experiment of see → decide → act provides the rationale for broad disciplinary categorizations. With renewed interest in action itself, surprising and exciting anomalous findings at odds with this simplified caricature have emerged. They reveal a much more intimate coupling of vision and action, which we describe. In turn, this prompts us to identify and dwell on three pertinent theories deserving of greater notice.

Keyword(s): action, attention, consciousness, vision
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-021422-043229
2023-01-18
2025-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/74/1/annurev-psych-021422-043229.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-021422-043229&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allport A. 1987. Selection for action: some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. Perspect. Percept. Act. 15:395–419
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Altschuler EL, Wisdom SB, Stone L, Foster C, Galasko D et al. 1999. Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror. Lancet N. Am. Ed. 353:91692035–36
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen RA, Aflalo T, Kellis S. 2019. From thought to action: the brain–machine interface in posterior parietal cortex. PNAS 116:5226274–79
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen RA, Mountcastle VB. 1983. The influence of the angle of gaze upon the excitability of the light-sensitive neurons of the posterior parietal cortex. J. Neurosci. 3:3532–48
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baars BJ. 1993. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ballard DH, Hayhoe MM, Pook PK, Rao RP. 1997. Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behav. Brain Sci. 20:4723–42
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL. 1985. Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet N. Am. Ed. 3258437:1106–7
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Barron AB, Klein C. 2016. What insects can tell us about the origins of consciousness. PNAS 113:184900–8
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Beardsworth T, Buckner T. 1981. The ability to recognize oneself from a video recording of one's movements without seeing one's body. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 18:119–22
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bravo MJ, Nakayama K. 1992. The role of attention in different visual-search tasks. Percept. Psychophys. 51:5465–72
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bridgeman B. 2007. Efference copy and its limitations. Comput. Biol. Med. 37:7924–29
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Broderick P, Horgan F, Blake C, Ehrensberger M, Simpson D, Monaghan K. 2018. Mirror therapy for improving lower limb motor function and mobility after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait Posture 63:208–20
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Burgess N. 2014. The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: a spatial model for cognitive neuroscience. Neuron 84:61120–25
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Butler AB, Hodos W. 2005. Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy: Evolution and Adaptation Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Calvo-Merino B, Grezes J, Glaser DE, Passingham RE, Haggard P. 2006. Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Curr. Biol. 16:191905–10
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Casile A, Giese MA. 2006. Nonvisual motor training influences biological motion perception. Curr. Biol. 16:169–74
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cisek P. 2007. Cortical mechanisms of action selection: the affordance competition hypothesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362: 1485.1585–99
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cisek P. 2019. Resynthesizing behavior through phylogenetic refinement. Atten. Percept. Psychophys 81:72265–87
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohen MA, Cavanagh P, Chun MM, Nakayama K. 2012. The attentional requirements of consciousness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16:8411–17
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen YE, Andersen RA. 2002. A common reference frame for movement plans in the posterior parietal cortex. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3:7553–62
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cumming J, Ramsey R 2009. Imagery interventions in sport. Advances in Applied Sport Psychology: A Review S Mellalieu, S Hanton 5–36 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cutting JE, Kozlowski LT. 1977. Recognizing friends by their walk: gait perception without familiarity cues. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 95:353–56
     [Google Scholar]
  23. de Bivort BL, van Swinderen B. 2016. Evidence for selective attention in the insect brain. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 15:9–15
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dehaene S. 2014. Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts London: Penguin
     [Google Scholar]
  25. DeSimone K, Viviano JD, Schneider KA. 2015. Population receptive field estimation reveals new retinotopic maps in human subcortex. J. Neurosci. 35:279836–47
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Desmurget M, Reilly KT, Richard N, Szathmari A, Mottolese C, Sirigu A. 2009. Movement intention after parietal cortex stimulation in humans. Science 324:5928811–13
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Deubel H, Schneider WX, Paprotta I. 1998. Selective dorsal and ventral processing: evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Vis. Cogn. 51:281–107
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Donders FC. 1868. Die Schnelligkeit psychischer Processe: erster Artikel. Arch. Anat. Physiol. Wiss. Med. 1868:657–81
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Dotan D, Pinheiro-Chagas P, Al Roumi F, Dehaene S 2019. Track it to crack it: dissecting processing stages with finger tracking. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23:121058–70
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Erb CD, Moher J, Song JH, Sobel DM. 2018. Numerical cognition in action: Reaching behavior reveals numerical distance effects in 5- to 6-year-olds. J. Numer. Cogn. 4:2286–96
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Eriksen CW, St. James JD 1986. Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: a zoom lens model. Percept. Psychophys. 40:4225–40
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fadiga L, Buccino G, Craighero L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Pavesi G. 1998. Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by motor imagery: a magnetic stimulation study. Neuropsychologia 37:2147–58
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Pavesi G, Rizzolatti G. 1995. Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J. Neurophysiol. 73:62608–11
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Finkbeiner M, Song JH, Nakayama K, Caramazza A. 2008. Engaging the motor system with masked orthographic primes: a kinematic analysis. Vis. Cogn. 16:111–22
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Fischer B. 1987. The preparation of visually guided saccades. Rev. Physiol. Biochem. Pharmacol. 106:1–35
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fisher YE, Lu J, D'Alessandro I, Wilson RI 2019. Sensorimotor experience remaps visual input to a heading-direction network. Nature 576:7785121–25
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gold JI, Shadlen MN. 2007. The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30:535–74
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Greenwald AG. 2003. On doing two things at once: III. Confirmation of perfect timesharing when simultaneous tasks are ideomotor compatible. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 29:5859–68
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Greenwald AG, Shulman HG. 1973. On doing two things at once: II. Elimination of the psychological refractory period effect. J. Exp. Psychol. 101:170–76
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Guillot A, Rienzo FD, Frank C, Debarnot U, MacIntyre TE. 2021. From simulation to motor execution: a review of the impact of dynamic motor imagery on performance. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.2007539
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Guo J, Song JH. 2019. Action fluency facilitates perceptual discrimination. Psychol. Sci. 30:101434–48
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Haggard P. 2019. The neurocognitive bases of human volition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70:9–28
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hardwick RM, Caspers S, Eickhoff SB, Swinnen SP. 2018. Neural correlates of action: comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 94:31–44
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Harvey CD, Coen P, Tank DW. 2012. Choice-specific sequences in parietal cortex during a virtual-navigation decision task. Nature 484:739262–68
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hatsopoulos NG, Suminski AJ. 2011. Sensing with the motor cortex. Neuron 72:3477–87
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hayhoe M. 2000. Vision using routines: a functional account of vision. Vis. Cogn. 71:343–64
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hecht S, Shlaer S, Pirenne MH. 1942. Energy, quanta, and vision. J. Gen. Physiol. 25:6819–40
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Helmholtz HV. 1896. Hundhuch der Physiologischen Optik Hamburg, Ger: Voss
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Heyes C, Catmur C. 2022. What happened to mirror neurons?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17:1153–68
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hikosaka O, Wurtz RH. 1983. Visual and oculomotor functions of monkey substantia nigra pars reticulata. IV. Relation of substantia nigra to superior colliculus. J. Neurophysiol. 49:51285–301
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M et al. 2006. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442:7099164–71
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Hommel B, Müsseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W. 2001. The theory of event coding TEC: a framework for perception and action planning. Behav. Brain Sci. 24:5849–78
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y. 1996. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. Neuroreport 7:142325–30
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Itti L, Koch C. 2000. A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vis. Res. 40:10–121489–506
     [Google Scholar]
  55. James W. 1890. Principles of Psychology New York: Henry Holt & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Jeannerod M. 2001. Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage 14:1S103–9
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Johansson G. 1973. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept. Psychophys. 14:2201–11
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Jonides J. 1980. Towards a model of the mind's eye's movement. Can. J. Psychol./Rev. Can. Psychol. 34:2103–12
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim HF, Hikosaka O. 2013. Distinct basal ganglia circuits controlling behaviors guided by flexible and stable values. Neuron 79:51001–10
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Kim HF, Hikosaka O. 2015. Parallel basal ganglia circuits for voluntary and automatic behaviour to reach rewards. Brain 138:71776–800
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kowler E, Anderson E, Dosher B, Blaser E 1995. The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vis. Res. 35:131897–916
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kreilinger IL, Moeller K, Pixner S. 2021. Mental simulation and its influence on finger-based numerical representations. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 25:100167
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Land MF. 2012. The operation of the visual system in relation to action. Curr. Biol. 22:18R811–17
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Land MF, Furneaux S. 1997. The knowledge base of the oculomotor system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 352: 1358.1231–39
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Land MF, Hayhoe M. 2001. In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities?. Vis. Res. 41:25–263559–65
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Land MF, Lee DN. 1994. Where we look when we steer. Nature 369:6483742–44
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Land MF, Mennie N, Rusted J. 1999. The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception 28:111311–28
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Lashley KS. 1951. The problem of serial order in behavior. Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior: The Hixon Symposium LA Jeffress 112–46 London: Chapman & Hall
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Latimer KW, Yates JL, Meister ML, Huk AC, Pillow JW. 2015. Single-trial spike trains in parietal cortex reveal discrete steps during decision-making. Science 349:6244184–87
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lehky SR, Sereno ME, Sereno AB. 2016. Characteristics of eye-position gain field populations determine geometry of visual space. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 9:72
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Loula F, Prasad S, Harber K, Shiffrar M. 2005. Recognizing people from their movement. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 31:1210–20
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Mack A, Rock I. 1998. Inattentional Blindness Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Maljkovic V, Nakayama K. 1994. Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Mem. Cogn. 22:6657–72
     [Google Scholar]
  74. McManus RR, Thomas LE. 2020. Vision is biased near handheld, but not remotely operated, tools. Atten. Percept. Psychophys 82:84038–57
     [Google Scholar]
  75. McPeek RM, Keller EL. 2002. Superior colliculus activity related to concurrent processing of saccade goals in a visual search task. J. Neurophysiol. 874:1805–15
     [Google Scholar]
  76. McPeek RM, Maljkovic V, Nakayama K. 1999. Saccades require focal attention and are facilitated by a short-term memory system. Vis. Res. 39:81555–66
     [Google Scholar]
  77. McPeek RM, Skavenski AA, Nakayama K. 2000. Concurrent processing of saccades in visual search. Vis. Res. 40:182499–516
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Merker B. 2005. The liabilities of mobility: a selection pressure for the transition to consciousness in animal evolution. Conscious. Cogn. 14:189–114
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Merker B. 2007. Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behav. Brain Sci. 30:163–81
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Moher J, Anderson BA, Song JH. 2015. Dissociable effects of salience on attention and goal-directed action. Curr. Biol. 25:152040–46
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Moher J, Song JH. 2014. Target selection bias transfers across different response actions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 40:31117–30
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Moher J, Song JH. 2016. Target selection biases from recent experience transfer across effectors. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 78:2415–26
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Moser EI, Kropff E, Moser MB. 2008. Place cells, grid cells, and the brain's spatial representation system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31:69–89
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Nakayama K 1990. The iconic bottleneck and the tenuous link between early visual processing and perception. Vision: Coding and Efficiency C Blakemore 411–22 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Nakayama K, Joseph JS 1998. Attention, pattern recognition and popout in visual search. The Attentive Brain R Parasuraman 279–98 Cambridge, MA: MIT press
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Nakayama K, Martini P. 2011. Situating visual search. Vis. Res. 51:131526–37
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Neisser U. 1967. Cognitive Psychology New York: Appleton-Century Crofts
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Neisser U. 1977. Cognition and Reality San Francisco: W.H. Freeman
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Newsome WT, Britten KH, Movshon JA. 1989. Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision. Nature 341:623752–54
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Newsome WT, Pare EB. 1988. A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT). J. Neurosci. 8:62201–11
     [Google Scholar]
  91. O'Keefe J, Dostrovsky J. 1971. The hippocampus as a spatial map: preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Res. 34:171–75
     [Google Scholar]
  92. O'Regan JK. 1990. Eye movements and reading. Rev. Oculomot. Res. 4:395–453
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Panksepp J. 2007. Emotional feelings originate below the neocortex: toward a neurobiology of the soul. Behav. Brain Sci. 30:1101–3
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Pashler H. 1984. Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 10:3358–77
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Perry CJ, Amarasooriya P, Fallah M. 2016. An eye in the palm of your hand: alterations in visual processing near the hand, a mini-review. Front. Comput. Neurosci 10:37
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Perry CJ, Sergio LE, Crawford JD, Fallah M. 2015. Hand placement near the visual stimulus improves orientation selectivity in V2 neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 113:72859–70
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Prasad B. 1996. Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 1 Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Ramachandran VS, Altschuler EL. 2009. The use of visual feedback, in particular mirror visual feedback, in restoring brain function. Brain 132:71693–710
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Ratcliff R. 1978. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol. Rev. 85:259–108
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Rayner K 1995. Eye movements and cognitive processes in reading, visual search, and scene perception. Studies in Visual Information Processing, Vol. 6 JM Findlay, R Walker, RW Kentridge 3–22 Amsterdam: North-Holland
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Reed CL, Betz R, Garza JP, Roberts RJ. 2010. Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Atten. Percept. Psychophys 72:1236–45
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Reed CL, Grubb JD, Steele C. 2006. Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 32:1166–77
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Resulaj A, Kiani R, Wolpert DM, Shadlen MN. 2009. Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature 461:7261263–66
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V. 2001. Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2:9661–70
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Rosenbaum DA. 2005. The Cinderella of psychology: the neglect of motor control in the science of mental life and behavior. Am. Psychol. 60:4308–17
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Sagi D, Julesz B. 1985.. “ Where” and “what” in vision. Science 228:47041217–19
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Salzman CD, Britten KH, Newsome WT. 1990. Cortical microstimulation influences perceptual judgements of motion direction. Nature 346:6280174–77
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Saygin AP, Wilson SM, Hagler DJ, Bates E, Sereno MI. 2004. Point-light biological motion perception activates human premotor cortex. J. Neurosci. 24:276181–88
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Searle JR. 1992. The Rediscovery of the Mind Cambridge, MA: MIT press
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Seelig JD, Jayaraman V. 2015. Neural dynamics for landmark orientation and angular path integration. Nature 521:7551186–91
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Shadlen MN, Newsome WT. 2001. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 86:41916–36
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Simons DJ, Levin DT. 1997. Change blindness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1:7261–67
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Snyder LH. 2000. Coordinate transformations for eye and arm movements in the brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 10:6747–54
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Song JH. 2017. Abandoning and modifying one action plan for alternatives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 72: 1718.20160195
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Song JH, Nakayama K. 2006. Role of focal attention on latencies and trajectories of visually guided manual pointing. J. Vis. 6:91–11
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Song JH, Nakayama K. 2008a. Numeric comparison in a visually-guided manual reaching task. Cognition 106:2994–1003
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Song JH, Nakayama K. 2008b. Target selection in visual search as revealed by movement trajectories. Vis. Res. 48:7853–61
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Song JH, Nakayama K. 2009. Hidden cognitive states revealed in choice reaching tasks. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13:8360–66
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Song JH, Takahashi N, McPeek RM. 2008. Target selection for visually guided reaching in macaque. J. Neurophysiol. 99:114–24
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Sperling G, Melchner MJ. 1978. The attention operating characteristic: examples from visual search. Science 202:4365315–18
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Sperry RW. 1952. Neurology and the mind-brain problem. Am. Sci 40:2291–312
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Spivey MJ, Dale R. 2006. Continuous dynamics in real-time cognition. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15:5207–11
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Sternberg S. 1969. The discovery of processing stages: extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychol. 30:276–315
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Taube JS, Muller RU, Ranck JB. 1990. Head-direction cells recorded from the postsubiculum in freely moving rats. I. Description and quantitative analysis. J. Neurosci. 10:2420–35
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Thomas LE. 2015. Grasp posture alters visual processing biases near the hands. Psychol. Sci. 26:5625–32
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Thomas LE. 2017. Action experience drives visual-processing biases near the hands. Psychol. Sci. 28:1124–31
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Thorndike EL 1913. Ideo-motor action. Psychol. Rev. 202:91–106
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Todorov E. 2004. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat. Neurosci. 7:9907–15
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Tononi G. 2008. Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol. Bull. 215:3216–42
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Treisman A. 1985. Preattentive processing in vision. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 31:2156–77
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Tseng P, Bridgeman B, Juan CH. 2012. Take the matter into your own hands: a brief review of the effect of nearby-hands on visual processing. Vis. Res. 72:74–77
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Umiltà MA, Intskirveli I, Grammont F, Rochat M, Caruana F et al. 2008. When pliers become fingers in the monkey motor system. PNAS 105:62209–13
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Weaver HE. 1943. Studies of ocular behavior in music reading. Psychol. Monogr. 55:1i–50
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Witt JK. 2018. Perception and action. Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 2: Sensation, Perception, and Attention Hoboken, NJ: Wiley https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn211
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Wolfe JM. 1994. Guided search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1:2202–38
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Wolff W. 1932. Selbstberteilung und Freundberteilung in Wissentlichen und Unwissentlichen Versuch. Psychol. Forsch. 16:251–328
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Zeng W, Guo Y, Wu G, Liu X, Fang Q. 2018. Mirror therapy for motor function of the upper extremity in patients with stroke: a meta-analysis. J. Rehabil. Med. 50:8–15
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Zipser D, Andersen RA. 1988. A back-propagation programmed network that simulates response properties of a subset of posterior parietal neurons. Nature 331:6158679–84
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-021422-043229
Loading
Rethinking Vision and Action
Annual Review of Psychology 74, 59 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-021422-043229
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-021422-043229
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-021422-043229
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error