Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action

Abstract

Evidence for a dichotomy between the planning of an action and its on-line control in humans is reviewed. This evidence suggests that planning and control each serve a specialized purpose utilizing distinct visual representations. Evidence from behavioral studies suggests that planning is influenced by a large array of visual and cognitive information, whereas control is influenced solely by the spatial characteristics of the target, including such things as its size, shape, orientation, and so forth. Evidence from brain imaging and neuropsychology suggests that planning and control are subserved by separate visual centers in the posterior parietal lobes, each constituting part of a larger network for planning and control. Planning appears to rely on phylogenetically newer regions in the inferior parietal lobe, along with the frontal lobes and basal ganglia, whereas control appears to rely on older regions in the superior parietal lobe, along with the cerebellum.

Controlling attention through action: Observing actions primes action-related stimulus dimensions

“…Even though our findings do not require this assumption, they are consistent with dual route models of action control that distinguish between (1) a (possibly ventral) route that is responsible for the off-line preparation of actions and the recruitment of the feed-forward components of action plans and (2) a (possibly dorsal) feedback-loop that is feeding on-line information into the system to specify the open parameters of the action plan (Glover, 2004;Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001b). According to the logic of this model, it would be the responsibility of the off-line system to specify the relative relevance of the information processed by the on-line loop.…”

Planning and Representing Intentional Action

“…the most up-to-date sensory information and a memory-based off-line channel that is more sensitive to the thoughts and intentions of the individual is in good agreement with, and provides a useful summary of, the data available so far [111,112]. This leaves us with a picture along the lines of Fig.…”

Different Physical Intuitions Exist Between Tasks, Not Domains

“…For instance, Zago and Lacquaniti (2005) further differentiate between perceptual knowledge and motor knowledge, suggesting that we rely on different cognitive systems for, e.g., determining when a falling ball will cross a line versus catching that ball at the same point (Zago et al 2004). This is similar to the visuomotor control literature that shows that the motor system is not biased by the same illusions that affect perception (e.g., Aglioti et al 1995), suggesting a distinction between Bvision for perception^and Bvision for action ( Glover 2004;Goodale and Milner 1992).…”