Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 577

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object‐directed grasping: an fMRI study

James, Thomas W., Culham, Jody, Humphrey, G. Keith, Milner, A. David, Goodale, Melvyn A.·2003·Brain

Abstract

D.F., a patient with severe visual form agnosia, has been the subject of extensive research during the past decade. The fact that she could process visual input accurately for the purposes of guiding action despite being unable to perform visual discriminations on the same visual input inspired a novel interpretation of the functions of the two main cortical visual pathways or 'streams'. Within this theoretical context, the authors proposed that D.F. had suffered severe bilateral damage to her occipitotemporal visual system (the 'ventral stream'), while retaining the use of her occipitoparietal visual system (the 'dorsal stream'). The present paper reports a direct test of this idea, which was initially derived from purely behavioural data, before the advent of modern functional neuroimaging. We used functional MRI to examine activation in her ventral and dorsal streams during object recognition and object-directed grasping tasks. We found that D.F. showed no difference in activation when presented with line drawings of common objects compared with scrambled line drawings in the lateral occipital cortex (LO) of the ventral stream, an area that responded differentially to these stimuli in healthy individuals. Moreover, high-resolution anatomical MRI showed that her lesion corresponded bilaterally with the location of LO in healthy participants. The lack of activation with line drawings in D.F. mirrors her poor performance in identifying the objects depicted in the drawings. With coloured and greyscale pictures, stimuli that she can identify more often, D.F. did show some ventral-stream activation. These activations were, however, more widely distributed than those seen in control participants and did not include LO. In contrast to the absent or abnormal activation observed during these perceptual tasks, D.F. showed robust activation in the expected dorsal stream regions during object grasping, despite considerable atrophy in some regions of the parietal lobes. In particular, an area in the anterior intraparietal sulcus was activated more for grasping an object than for just reaching to that object, for both D.F. and controls. In conclusion, we have been able to confirm directly that D.F.'s visual form agnosia is associated with extensive damage to the ventral stream, and that her spared visuomotor skills are associated with visual processing in the dorsal stream.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awg248

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 577

Metadata

Authors
James, T. W., Culham, J., Humphrey, G. K., Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A.
Venue
Brain
Published
2003-11
Volume
126
Issue
11
Pages
2463-2475
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2167516383
Cited by
577
References
3
FWCI
14.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.