First published in 1995, this book presents a model for understanding the visual processing underlying perception and action, proposing a broad distinction within the brain between two kinds of vision: conscious perception and unconscious ‘online’ vision. It argues that each kind of vision can occur quasi-independently of the other, and is separately handled by a quite different processing system. For this new edition, the text from the original edition has been left untouched, standing as a coherent statement of the authors' position. However, a very substantial epilogue has been added to the book, which reviews some of the key developments that support or challenge the views that were put forward in the first edition. The new chapter summarizes developments in various relevant areas of psychology, neuroscience, and behaviour. It supplements the main text by updating the reader on the contributions that have emerged from the use of functional neuroimaging, which was in its infancy when the first edition was written. Neuroimaging, and functional MRI in particular, has revolutionized the field by allowing investigators to plot in detail the patterns of activity within the visual brains of behaving and perceiving humans. The authors show how its use now allows scientists to test and confirm their proposals, based largely on evidence accrued from primate neuroscience in conjunction with studies of neurological patients.

Although both reaching and grasping require transporting the hand to the object location, only grasping also requires processing of object shape, size and orientation to preshape the hand. Behavioural and neuropsychological evidence suggests that the object processing required for grasping relies on different neural substrates from those mediating object recognition. Specifically, whereas object recognition is believed to rely on structures in the ventral (occipitotemporal) stream, object grasping appears to rely on structures in the dorsal (occipitoparietal) stream. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine whether grasping (compared to reaching) produced activation in dorsal areas, ventral areas, or both. We found greater activity for grasping than reaching in several regions, including anterior intraparietal (AIP) cortex. We also performed a standard object perception localizer (comparing intact vs. scrambled 2D object images) in the same subjects to identify the lateral occipital complex (LOC), a ventral stream area believed to play a critical role in object recognition. Although LOC was activated by the objects presented on both grasping and reaching trials, there was no greater activity for grasping compared to reaching. These results suggest that dorsal areas, including AIP, but not ventral areas such as LOC, play a fundamental role in computing object properties during grasping.

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.