» Articles » PMID: 20333368

Does Dorsal Processing Require Central Capacity? More Evidence from the PRP Paradigm

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2010 Mar 25
PMID 20333368
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The human vision system appears to divide into two streams: a ventral stream from V1 to the inferior temporal cortex processing 'vision for perception', and a dorsal stream from V1 to the posterior parietal cortex processing 'vision for action'. Among other characteristics, it has been suggested that dorsal processing is effortless, unconscious, and not bearing on central cognitive resources implicated in ventral processing. The present study shows that a typical dorsal task (i.e., grasping an object) is subject to a classical indicator of capacity limitations in dual-task situations, the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect. In particular, response times to task 2 (the grasping task) increased the more the two tasks overlapped in time, i.e., the shorter the time interval between the stimuli of the two tasks was. As is also common in PRP experiments, response times to task 1 were largely unaffected by this variation. The PRP effect was obtained despite careful control of strategic response deferment, and peripheral overlap of response modalities that may have artificially created performance costs in previous studies. Altogether, the present results show that dorsal processing is subject to the same capacity limitations that can almost universally be found with simple cognitive tasks.

Citing Articles

Two sources of task prioritization: The interplay of effector-based and task order-based capacity allocation in the PRP paradigm.

Hoffmann M, Pieczykolan A, Koch I, Huestegge L Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020; 82(7):3402-3414.

PMID: 32533527 PMC: 7536159. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-020-02071-6.


Grasping Discriminates between Object Sizes Less Not More Accurately than the Perceptual System.

Gohringer F, Lohr-Limpens M, Hesse C, Schenk T Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(3).

PMID: 31735837 PMC: 6802793. DOI: 10.3390/vision3030036.


On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies.

Strobach T, Schutz A, Schubert T Front Psychol. 2015; 6:403.

PMID: 25904890 PMC: 4387374. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00403.


Garner-Interference in left-handed awkward grasping.

Eloka O, Feuerhake F, Janczyk M, Franz V Psychol Res. 2014; 79(4):579-89.

PMID: 24980084 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0585-1.


Mice move smoothly: irrelevant object variation affects perception, but not computer mouse actions.

Janczyk M, Pfister R, Kunde W Exp Brain Res. 2013; 231(1):97-106.

PMID: 23955104 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3671-5.


References
1.
Pashler H . Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull. 1994; 116(2):220-44. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220. View

2.
Pisella L, Binkofski F, Lasek K, Toni I, Rossetti Y . No double-dissociation between optic ataxia and visual agnosia: multiple sub-streams for multiple visuo-manual integrations. Neuropsychologia. 2006; 44(13):2734-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.027. View

3.
Franz V, Gegenfurtner K . Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008; 25(7):920-50. DOI: 10.1080/02643290701862449. View

4.
Ruthruff E, Miller J, Lachmann T . Does mental rotation require central mechanisms?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995; 21(3):552-70. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.552. View

5.
Liu G, Chua R, Enns J . Attention for perception and action: task interference for action planning, but not for online control. Exp Brain Res. 2007; 185(4):709-17. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-1196-5. View