To what extent are visual imagery
To what extent are ocular imagination and ocular perceptual experience mediated by the same neurobiological constituents?
Abstraction:Much research in recent decennaries has attempted to reply the inquiry as to whether imaginativeness of, for illustration, ocular imagination, involves the same encephalon mechanisms as existent ocular perceptual experience. How do images differ from existent perceptual experiences, and how are they likewise? This paper will sum up grounds which shows that ocular imagination non merely involves encephalon activity, but many of the same encephalon constructions that are involved in ocular perceptual experience are involved in ocular imagination every bit good. A computing machine theoretical account of the cortical ocular system and the effects of harm to that system are discussed in some item. The interaction between ocular perceptual experience and ocular imagination is besides briefly discussed, and its deductions for perceptual upsets, such as hallucinations in schizophrenic disorder.
Role of the Visual Cortex in Perception.
The human striate cerebral mantle ( called V1 or “primary ocular cortex” ) in the occipital lobe of the encephalon has been long known to be an indispensable constituent of signifier perceptual experience in the ocular system. In a authoritative survey, Hubel and Wiesel ( 1968 ) showed that the V1 country in cats ( primary ocular cerebral mantle or striate cerebral mantle ) is composed of cells that respond to definite qualities of stimulations, such as a point or line. The experimenters identified cells as “simple” , “complex” , or “hyper-complex” , depending on the complexness of the stimulation to which they responded, with “hyper-complex” cells frequently reacting merely to lines in a certain orientation, for illustration.
Few deny hence that the V1 or striate cerebral mantle ( Brodmann country 17 in worlds ) is involved in the ‘nuts and bolts’ of ocular perceptual experience, with more elusive qualities of the ocular stimulation, such as colour, shadowing, etc. being covered by V2 and higher or “secondary” ocular countries ( Brodmann countries 18 and 19 ) . When looking at an object, information is passed from the retina through the brain-stem and the thalamus to the ocular cerebral mantle. From the primary ocular cerebral mantle ( V1 or striate cerebral mantle ) the information is passed to many distinguishable countries within the occipital cerebral mantle. All of the above countries are “retinotopically organized” ( Ochsner and Kosslyn, 1999 ) , intending that the spacial construction of the object represented corresponds about to the image on the retina itself. A disproportion-ate country of the retina represents the centre of the ocular field, and this disproportion is represented in all of the other countries to which the information is passed.
Pollen ( 1999 ) argues that the human striate cerebral mantle ( V1 ) is non merely a relayer of ocular information from the brain-stem and thalamus, but an “indispensable component” of a nervous tract concerned with neutral signifier perceptual experience.
A Computer Simulation of the Visual System ( Introduction )
Kosslyn et. Al. ( 1990 ) theorized that a series of subsystems must be involved in treating ocular object acknowledgment and designation. They used cognition about what the ocular system can make as a jumping off point. For illustration, we can acknowledge a human signifier in many different positions, such as standing, sitting, crouching, etc. these abilities had long go been postulated to govern out simple template theories of form acknowledgment ( Neisser, 1967 ) . We can besides place objects when they appear in different parts of the ocular field, when they subtend different ocular angles, when they vary in form ( eg. oak leaves ) , or when they have optional parts ( eg. , some chairs have weaponries, others do non ) .
Their undertaking was to bring forth a computing machine theoretical account that could execute all of these perceptual undertakings. Research had shown that many cognitive procedures could be modeled with nervous webs. Kosslynet. Al.set out to pattern the ocular acknowledgment procedure utilizing treating constituents each of which might match in the encephalon to a separate nervous web.
A 2nd end of the undertaking was to see legion neurological syndromes which affect vision, and see if making harm to the system at assorted points could cast some penetration onto the job of how lesions or disfunctions of the encephalon could bring forth assorted neurological syndromes.
Using computing machine simulations, they were able to demo how disfunctions can originate from the break of the assorted subsystems. To understand their theoretical account, it is first necessary to understand their theory of how the ocular system of the encephalon maps, much of which is articulated in other surveies.
A Theory of the Functioning of the Cortical Visual System
Kosslyn and his co-workers have attempted to organize a theory which could explicate how the encephalon processes both sensed and imagined ocular information. A set of retinotopically organized mapped countries are postulated to work together to divide figure from land, and all of these countries grouped together have been designated as a individual construction with a specific map, and have been given the name “visual buffer” ( Kosslyn, 1994 ) . This country consists of many more specialised constituents, one medium to wavelength ( country V4 ) , another to gesture, and so on.
Merely a little sum of information in the ocular buffer can be processed at one clip. Thus an internal “attention window” selects patterns in the “visual buffer” for farther processing. ( Ochsner and Kosslyn, 1999 ; Kosslyn, 1994 ) .
Information selected by the “attention window” is sent over two parallel tracts in the intellectual cerebral mantle, the ventral, alleged “what” tract in the inferior temporal lobe, which is concerned with belongingss of the object, therefore finding what the object is, and the dorsal “where” tract in the posterior parietal lobe, which is concerned with spacial belongingss of the object, therefore finding where the object is with regard to other objects in the field ( Ungerleider and Mishkin, 1982 ) .
In order to acknowledge an object ( or to conceive of it ) , we must hold stored some kind ofrepresentationof that object in our encephalons. These representations are stored in perceptual encoding systems that store belongingss of an object from assorted sense modes ( Kosslyn and Koenig, 1992, Schacter, 1990 ) .
Ocular perceptual experience and imagination are both postulated to utilize these mechanisms. The simplest signifier of perceptual experience is frequently referred to as a “bottom-up” procedure because it is basically stimulus driven, whereas operations affecting imagination are sometimes referred to as “top-down” mental procedures, because they involve and are driven chiefly by representations or images stored in higher ocular or extravisual cortical countries,i.e. ,they are basically image driven ( Kosslyn, 1994 ) . As will go evident subsequently, more complex signifiers of perceptual experience involve “top-down” every bit good as “bottom-up” mental procedures. Furthermore, both mental procedures make usage of the dorsal, parietal “where” tract and the ventral, inferior temporal “what” tract ( Kosslynet. al. ,2001 ) .
A Computer Simulation of the Cortical Visual System ( Description )
Having described the theory of Kosslyn and his co-workers of the operation of the ocular system, it will now be attempted to depict farther, if merely briefly, the computing machine simulated theoretical account of Kosslynet. Al.( 1990 ) , and what conclusions the experimenters were able to pull from it.
A computing machine theoretical account was built to seek to imitate utilizing nervous webs the known countries associated with ocular perceptual experience in the macaque encephalon and their connexions. A ventral and dorsal system ( “what” and “where” tracts ) were simulated merely as are known to be in the existent archpriest encephalon. It is known that all connexions in the ocular system are two-way ; that is to state that every construction in the ocular system of the encephalon that sends information to another country besides receives information from that country.
A “visual buffer” is encoded to imitate, approximately, the planar geometry of the projection of the “object” ( really a 60 ten 60 pixel array or petroleum “picture” of an object ) on ocular encephalon constructions. An “attention window” represented the selective facet of perceptual experience, since it is thought that the encephalon can merely go to to one spacial part at a clip. ( Cave and Kosslyn, 1989: Posneret. al. ,1980 ) .
“Objects” are encoded by the ocular buffer as a 20 ten 20 pixel array. Features of an encoded “object” are compared to other “objects” stored in memory.
As one might anticipate, the plan was really limited ( in comparing to a archpriest encephalon ) in what it could make. Obviously it could merely place two dimensional images, non three dimensional objects, and merely a really limited figure of images could be identified. The system was capable of executing merely extremely simplified versions of undertakings.
The “what” and “where” systems of the archpriest encephalon were divided into subsystems in the theoretical account, to enable a rough simulation of their operation. Is the building of two separate tracts the most efficient manner to plan these maps into a theoretical account? Interestingly, Rueckl, Cave and Kosslyn ( 1989 ) had antecedently produced computational theoretical accounts which showed that a individual construction or nervous web that identifies both the object’s signifier and location is far less efficient than two separate nervous webs, one for each calculation. Thus the double tract system in the archpriest encephalon was simulated in the theoretical account.
The dorsal “where” system consisted of the undermentioned constituents:
1. ) Spatiotopic mapping – “where” information in the ocular buffer is retinotopic ;i.e. ,determines “where” in relation to the centre of the retina ( fovea ) .
2. ) Categorical dealingss encoding – codes spacial information into a long term associatory memory, where it can be combined with information about object belongingss from the ventral system.
3. ) Coordinate dealingss encoding – some objects can be identified merely by observing elusive distance ratios,eg. ,distance between eyes, distance between nose and oral cavity, etc.
The ventral “what” system consisted of the undermentioned constituents:
1. ) Preprocessing – To acknowledge objects from different ocular angles, vantage points, etc. , the theoretical account must happen a manner to treat the informations so that facets of the object that remain the same under these conditions are recognized.
2. ) Pattern activation – object designation is accomplished by comparing new objects against antecedently stored information. This subsystem contains ocular representations that specify ocular belongingss of antecedently seen forms.
3. ) Feature sensing – makes judgements about features of objects.
4. ) Associative memory – shops information associated with antecedently seen objects: name, facts about object ; the class to which it belongs, etc.
A 3rd major system of the theoretical account was programmed for “top-down” hypothesis proving. It consisted of the undermentioned subsystems:
1. ) Coordinate belongings search – looks up in associatory memory the belongingss the object should hold.
2. ) Categorical belongings search – looks up belongingss of classs.
3. ) Categorical transition – when a categorical spacial relation is looked up, the class must be converted to a specification of a location in infinite, which proved to be really complex.
4. ) Attention switching – adjusts the attending window as appropriate.
The “where” information from the dorsal tract and the “what” information from the ventral system are transmitted into associatory memory where they are stored in a short-run memory bank and compared to long-run memory Bankss incorporating information about the objects.
The system, when working decently, could call and sort familiar objects shown in the images. There were merely two classs, foxes and faces, and merely eight images, including a partly occluded face and an unfamiliar distorted fox. The plan looked for typical characteristics, such as paws, or a human olfactory organ. If the image was occluded or distorted, the plan would non be able to fit as many familiar characteristics, but could still do the categorization, although with slightly less assurance.
Effectss of Damage to the System
To measure the effects of harm, processing could be disrupted within a system, or connexions between systems could be broken.
There were frequently viing subsystems or memory representations within the system, so that harm frequently resulted in a break of the normal balance between them, and “compensations” could frequently ensue by doing the subsystems to be used in different fortunes after harm.
For illustration, a search map attempts to happen the best tantrum between the current image and a stored memory of an object. If a connexion is damaged, the system might happen the 2nd best fit alternatively.
Sing complete harm to a subsystem, or the severance of information lines, there were 44 distinguishable classs of harm that could be done to the system, and the writers calculated that there were millions of possible combinations of harm. Many combinations, nevertheless, produce the same consequence, because harm upriver frequently causes the system to neglect before downstream connexions even occur.
There were two classs of harm harmonizing to the authors’ categorization:
1. ) failure in the ability to stand for and construe perceptual units, and 2. ) failure in the ability to stand for and construe spacial dealingss among units. In both classs there were shortages that the writers felt mimicked shortages seen in encephalon damaged or stroke patients.
In class 1 were the undermentioned shortages, which the writers contended were correspondent to shortages seen in human patients:
1. ) Ocular object agnosia – the plan lost the ability to call objects.
2. ) Prosopagnosia ( literally means “face blindness” ) – the plan can sort the object but non call specific objects. A individual with prosopagnosia can see single characteristics, but can non set them together to place a peculiar face ( or fox ) .
3. ) Metamorphopsia – Objects appear larger, or fragmented and compressed. This
would happen in the plan if the spatiotopic function system did non calculate size
In class 2 were the undermentioned shortages:
1. ) Simultagnosia – Inability to comprehend more than one form at a clip. The theoretical account displayed this when the spatiotopic function system was partly damaged, so that all stimulations were assigned to the same location.
2. ) Visuospatial freak out – patients who fail to place objects in infinite. Such a malfunction would happen in the plan following harm to the ocular buffer that consequences in debasement of the input so that perceptual experience is registered, but form acknowledgment is non possible.
3. ) Disorders of ocular hunt – Patients who have “paralysis of gaze” or ocular scanning upsets – arrested development on a stimulation without being able to let go of their regard. This can be caused in the theoretical account by harm to the belongings search system, doing it to look up belongingss once more and once more, or by harm to the attending switching subsystem.
4. ) Hemineglect – Patients who ignore everything on one side of infinite, normally due to damage to the opposite parietal lobe. The theoretical account does non hold bilateral symmetricalness, but a partial disregard of the ocular input would be possible, which could be caused by a upset of the attending switching system.
The writers noted that many combinations of harm could bring forth similar shortages, and concluded that neurological testing may hence hold to be more elusive in the hereafter to take into history and place the many types of harm that could bring forth a given shortage.
Do Ocular Perception and Visual Imagery Involve the Same Pathways?
How does the procedure ofconceive ofingan image comparison with the procedure of comprehending the image? It has long been known that imagination involves the activity of encephalon constructions, because lesions that affect perceptual experience besides affect imagination. For illustration, the “neglect syndrome” , which is defined as the failure to comprehend or go to to stimuli on the side of infinite opposite a parietal lesion, was shown by Bisiach and Luzatti ( 1978 ) to use to imagery every bit good as perceptual experience. Two Italian patients with left hemineglect were asked to conceive of the celebrated Piazza del Duomo in Milan when confronting the square while standing at opposite sides of the square ; foremost at the north side of the square confronting south, and so at the South of the square facing North. When asked to conceive of themselves in the first place, they described merely objects on one side of the square, whereas when asked to conceive of themselves confronting in the other way, they described merely objects on the opposite side of the square. In both instances they were depicting merely objects that would be ontheirright side. Furthermore, Farah ( 1989b ) showed that lesions to encephalon countries involved in specific facets of ocular operation, such as colour or localisation, tend to impact imagination every bit good as perceptual experience.
Mental ocular imagination as measured by inquiring topics to conceive of taking a path affecting several bends to a peculiar finish, was found to alter the regional intellectual oxidative metamorphosis every bit good as regional intellectual blood flow in 25 cortical Fieldss. ( Rolandet. al. ,1987 ) .
Experimenters have differed, nevertheless, on whether the primary ocular cerebral mantle is every bit involved when we merely conceive of a stimulation. It may be that when we imagine a stimulation, the encephalon activates all of the encephalon constructions that were involved in the original perceptual experience of the stimulation, or it may be that the primary ocular cerebral mantle, ( and possibly secondary ocular cerebral mantle every bit good ) , are activated merely in ocular perceptual experience but non during ocular imagination. Roland and Gulyas ( 1994 ) have postulated that primary ocular cerebral mantle may non be necessary at all, while Kosslyn and Ochsner ( 1994 ) took the opposite place.
Roland and Gulyas argue that because some encephalon damaged patients can be found who have lost the capacity for ocular imagination but non ocular perceptual experience, that different encephalon constructions must be involved. It is known that in imagined scenes, the parietal and temporal ocular association countries are activated ( Roland and Friberg, 1985 ) . Unlike the primary and secondary ocular cortical countries, these countries are non retinotopically organized. The statement put away by Roland and Gulyas is that retinotopically organized countries are better suited for calculation ( as would presumptively be involved in precise perceptual experience ) than for representation ( as would presumptively be involved in conceive ofing a stimulation ) . Thus the early, retinotopically organized ocular countries might non be necessary for ocular imagination.
Kosslyn and Ochsler’s ( 1994 ) place was based on a survey by Kosslynet. al. ,( 1993 ) who found that V1 cerebral mantle was activated during PET scans of topics who were asked to conceive of letters on a grid, as opposed to topics who were really sing the letters on the same grid. Indeed the precise co-ordinates of the activated parts were similar in the existent and imagined stimulation conditions. Other surveies seem to back up Kosslyn and Ochsner’s place. Using functional MRI ( LeBihan,et. al. ,1993 ) , and antielectron emanation imaging ( PET ) ( Kosslynet. Al. , 1995 ) , activation of widespread parts of the occipital lobe including prestriate countries V2 and V1 have been demonstrated during the formation of imagination in experimental topics.
Therefore an alternate account, which even Roland and Gulyas do non govern out, is that back projections from the countries involved in imagination may really retrace the image on the “grid” presumed to be located in the retinotopically organized ocular countries in the occipital cerebral mantle.
Whether this happens or non could presumptively depend on how precise an imaginativeness of a stimulation is demanded. Kleinet. Al.( 2000 ) showed that country V1, for illustration, was likely to be activated in ocular imagination merely when images with many inside informations are formed and used in a undertaking. However, the activity was much greater when topics were asked to measure features of an object, irrespective of whether the object was existent or imagined. Kosslyn et.al. ( 2001 ) showed that imagination activates retinotopically organized ocular cerebral mantle ( Brodmann countries 17, 18 ) in merely some imaging undertakings but non in others. The writers argue that these countries are more likely to be activated in undertakings where the topic is asked to seek to happen high declaration item in a mental image.
Kosslyn ( 1980, 1994 ) hence argued that ocular mental images are “depictive” , and so use retinotopically organized ocular countries to stand for an image. It appears that the same ocular countries are used for either perceptual experience ( stimulus driven or “bottom up” building ) or fanciful ( “top down” ) building of a signifier or form, but different extravisual countries ( Ochsner and Kosslyn, 1999 ) . Ocular countries activated will differ, nevertheless, on favoritism undertakings, depending on what types of ocular cues are used to do the favoritism. For illustration, Gulyaset. Al.( 1995 ) , utilizing rCBF and PET scans, showed that distinguishable countries in the ocular cerebral mantle were activated depending on whether topics were asked to execute a signifier favoritism or a colour favoritism undertaking.
Even if retinotopically organized ocular countries are involved in image coevals, the inquiry still remains whether a “depictive” image is indistinguishable in the encephalon to a perceived image. D’Espositoet. Al.( 1989 ) , utilizing functional MRI, found that when topics were instructed to bring forth a mental image of a word, ocular association cerebral mantle was activated, but non the primary ocular cerebral mantle ( V1 ) .
More recent surveies have shown that a great trade of convergence occurs between encephalon constructions used in ocular imagination and those used in ocular perceptual experience. Galis,et. Al.( 2004 ) had topics either visualize or merely see weak drawings of simple objects, so were asked to do judgements about the images in the drawings. There was a great trade of convergence in encephalon constructions activated in the perceptual experience vs. imagination conditions, but at that place was more overlap in the frontlet and parietal countries activated than in the occipital lobe, where the retinotopically organized representation of ocular stimulations are known to happen, possibly giving more acceptance to Roland and Gulyas proposition that retinotopically organized ocular cerebral mantle is at leastnon asnecessary for ocular imagination as for ocular perceptual experience. However, the writers argued that the encephalon parts activated in common may be involved in public presentation of the undertakings instead than in perceptual experience vs. imagining of the ocular stimulation. The common countries activated in the frontal lobe, for illustration, could be explained by Kosslyn’s ( 1994 ) statement that the frontal lobe is involved in shunting information from assorted encephalon countries stand foring the assorted sense modes, and the same countries would be involved whether the information being shunted were perceived or imagined. The common parietal countries activated could be explained in a similar mode, since certain parietal countries are involved in the same cognitive control system as the aforesaid frontal countries.
Mechelliet. al. ,( 2004 ) found that, during ocularperceptual experience, activation in non-striate ocular cerebral mantle involved forward connexions from early ocular countries, whereas during ocularimagination, activation involved backward connexions from prefrontal cerebral mantle.
However, there may be elusive hemispheric differences between operations affecting ocular perceptual experience and those affecting imagination. The predomination of grounds favours left hemisphere laterality for mental imagination as opposed to perceptual experience ( Farah, 1986, 1989b ; Farahet. al. ,1985 ) , although some specific undertakings such as mental rotary motion look to be right hemisphere dominant ( Farah, 1989b ) .
The Interaction of Visual Imagery and Visual Perception ; Possible Deductions for Schizophrenia.
Does mental imagination interact with perceptual processing? Farah ( 1989a ) showed that when topics were asked to organize an image of a missive “T” or “H” on a grid, stimuli falling within the grid points incorporating the missive were more likely to be perceived than those falling outside those grid points. Heil and Henninghausen ( 1993 ) , nevertheless, showed that this was merely true for “compact” images, as opposed to forms that were disjointed, such as a form of squares as opposed to a missive. They argued that a “compact” figure, such as a missive, caused the topic to segregate figure from land within a field, with more attending being directed to parts of the grid within the figure than to parts of the grid composing the land. Less compact systems did non hold this consequence.
Much research has been done in recent old ages to detect what implications the interaction between imagination and perceptual experience may hold for hallucinations in schizophrenic disorder. Hallucinations have been assumed to ensue from internally generated information being misinterpreted as being externally generated. Some have argued that increased color of imagination may do images less distinguishable from perceptual experiences, therefore doing the differentiation between them hard ( Johnson and Raye, 1981 ; Johnsonet. al. ,1993 ) . This could account for hallucinations in schizophrenics. Alemanet. al. ,( 2003 ) found a important difference in public presentation on several undertakings designed to mensurate imagery-perception interaction between hallucinating schizophrenics and normal controls, although the schizophrenics did non differ significantly from controls in undertakings designed to mensurate their ability to organize images and utilize them in a undertaking. Alemanet. al. ,( 2005 ) found a important difference between patients and controls on an object imagination undertaking, but non on a spacial imagination undertaking.
In decision, it appears that ocular perceptual experience and ocular imagination may affect many of the same tracts in the encephalon. A computing machine simulated theoretical account of the cortical ocular system demonstrates that harm to the system affects top-down ( image driven ) procedure every bit good as bottom-up ( stimulus-driven ) processes. Imagery is known to be associated with mensurable encephalon activity. Cortical tracts have been identified which are involved in both ocular perceptual experience and ocular imagination. Much argument has occurred over whether retinotopically organized countries of the ocular cerebral mantle are involved in imagination every bit good as perceptual experience. It appears that they are, the extent being determined by the preciseness and item demanded by the peculiar imagination procedure or undertaking. Furthermore, it has been shown that there are important interactions between imagination and perceptual experience, both in normal and unnatural procedures. Recent surveies have attempted to measure the possible deductions of these findings for hallucinations in schizophrenic disorder.
R E F E R E N C E S
Aleman, A, de Haan, EH, Kahn RS. ( 2005 ) , “Object versus spacial ocular mental imagination in patients with schizophrenia” ,J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2005 Jan ; 30 ( 1 ) :53-6.
Aleman, A, Koen, BE, Bocker, RJ deHaan, EHF, and Kahn, R, ( 2003 ) , “Cognitive Basis of hallucinations in schizophrenic disorder: function of top-down information processing” ,Schizophrenia Res. ,64:175-185.
Bisiach, E. and Luzatti, C. ( 1978 ) “Unilateral disregard of representational space” ,Cortex,14, 129-133.
D’Esposito M, Detre JA, Aguirre GK, Stallcup M, Alsop DC Tippet LJ, Farah MJ ( 1997 ) , “A functional MRI survey of mental image generation” ,Neuropsychologia. 1997 May ; 35 ( 5 ) :725-30..
Farah MJ. , ( 1985 ) , Psychophysical grounds for a shared representational medium for mental images and percepts” ,J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985 Mar ; 114 ( 1 ) :91-103. Farah MJ. ( 1986 ) , “The lateralization of mental image coevals: a trial with normal subjects.” ,Neuropsychologia. 24 ( 4 ) :541-51.
R E F E R E N C E S ( contd. )
Farah MJ. ( 1989a ) , “Mechanisms of imagery-perception interaction” , J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 May ; 15 ( 2 ) :203-11.
Farah MJ. ( 1989b ) , “The nervous footing of mental imagery” ,Tendencies Neurosci. 1989 Oct ; 12 ( 10 ) :395-9.
Farah MJ, Gazzaniga MS, Holtzman JD, Kosslyn SM ( 1985 ) , “A left hemisphere footing for ocular mental imagination? ”Neuropsychologia. 23 ( 1 ) :115-8.
Farah MJ, Peronnet F, Gonon MA, Giard MH. ( 1988 ) , “Electrophysiological grounds for a shared representational medium for ocular images and ocular percepts” ,J Exp Psychol Gen. 117 ( 3 ) :248- 57.
Ganis G, Thompson WL, Kosslyn SM ( 2004 ) , “Brain countries underlying ocular mental imagination and ocular perceptual experience: an functional magnetic resonance imaging study” ,Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Jul ; 20 ( 2 ) :226-41.
Gulyas B, Roland PE ( 1994 ) , “Processing and analysis of signifier, coloring material and binocular disparity in the human encephalon: functional anatomy by antielectron emanation tomography” ,Eur J Neurosci. 1994 Dec 1 ; 6 ( 12 ) :1811-28.
Heil M, Rosler F, Hennighausen E. ( 1993 ) , “Imagery-perception interaction depends on the form of the image: a answer to Farah ( 1989) ” , J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993 Dec ; 19 ( 6 ) :1313-20.
Johnson, MK, Hashtroudi, S, and Lindsay, DS, ( 1993 ) , “Source Monitoring” ,Psych. Bull. ,114: 3-28.
Johnson, MK, and Raye, CL, ( 1981 ) , “Reality monitoring” ,Psych. Rev. ,88: 67-85.
Klein, I, Paradis, AL, Poline, JB, Kosslyn, SM, and Le Bihan, D ( 2000 ) , “Transient Activity in the Human Calcarine Cortex During Visual-Mental Imagery: An Event-Related functional magnetic resonance imaging Study” , Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 12: S15-S23.
Kosslyn, SM, ( 1980 ) ,Image and Mind, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Univ. Press.
Kosslyn, SM, ( 1994 ) ,Image and Brain, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Kosslyn SM, Flynn RA, Amsterdam JB, Wang G. , ( 1990 ) , Components of high-ranking vision: a cog-nitive neuroscience analysis and histories of neurological syndromes” , Cognition. 1990 Mar ; 34 ( 3 ) :203-77.
Kosslyn SM, Holtzman JD, Farah MJ, Gazzaniga MS. ( 1985 ) , “A computational analysis of mental image coevals: grounds from functional dissociations in split-brain patients” , J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985 Sep ; 114 ( 3 ) :311-41.
Kosslyn, SM and Koenig, O. ( 1992 )Wet Mind, New York, The Free Press.
Kosslyn SM, Thompson WL, Kim IJ, Alpert NM ( 1995 ) “Topographical representations of mental images in primary ocular cortex” ,Nature378:496–498.
LeBihan D, Turner R, Zeffiro TA, Cuenod CA, Jezzard P, Bonnerot V ( 1993 ) ” Activation of human primary ocular cerebral mantle during ocular recall” ,Proc Natl Acad Sci USA90:802–811.
Mechelli A, Price CJ, Friston KJ, Ishai A. ( 2004 ) , “Where bottom-up meets top-down: neural interactions during perceptual experience and imagery” ,Cereb Cortex. 2004 Nov ; 14 ( 11 ) :1256-65. Epub 2004 Jun 10.
Neisser U ( 1967 )Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.
R E F E R E N C E S ( contd. )
Ochsner, K. N. & A ; Kosslyn, S. M. ( 1999 ) . “ The cognitive neuroscience approach” . In D. E. Rumelhart & A ; B. O. Martin, ( Eds. ) , Handbook of Cognition and Perception, vol. X. , Cognitive Science ( pp. 319-365 ) . Academic Imperativeness: San Diego.
Pollen, DA. ( 1999 ) ,On the Neural Correlates of Visual Perception Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 9, No. 1, 4-19, January 1999.
Roland PE and Friberg, L ( 1985 )J. Neurophysiol. ,53, 1219-1243.
Roland PE, and B. Gulyas, B, ( 1994 ) , “Visual imagination and ocular representation” ,Tendencies Neurosci. 1994 Jul ; 17 ( 7 ) :281-7.
Roland PE, Gulyas B. ( 1995 ) , “Visual memory, ocular imagination, and ocular acknowledgment of big field forms by the human encephalon: functional anatomy by antielectron emanation tomography” ,Cereb Cortex. 1995 Jan-Feb ; 5 ( 1 ) :79-93.
Rueckl, JG, Cave, KR, and Kosslyn, SM, “Why are “what” and “where” processed by separate cortical systems? A computational investigation” ,J. Cogn. Neurosci. ,1: 171-186.
Schacter, DL ( 1990 ) , “Perceptual representation systems and inexplicit memory: Toward a declaration of the multiple memory systems debate.” ,Annalss NY Acad. Sci. ,608: 543-571.
Ungerleider, LG and Mishkin, M. ( 1982 ) , “Two Cortical Visual Systems” , in D.J. Engle and M.A. Gooddale, and R.J. Mansfield ( explosive detection systems. ) ,Analysis of Visual Behavior, ( pp. 549-586 ) . Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.