1. fMRI Reveals a Dissociation Between Object Grasping and Object Recognition Culham et al. (submitted)

2. Overview Background Methods Results Conclusions Discussion –Contrasts & baselines

3. Background Visual systems

4. Dual Stream Theory “ACTION” (grasping) “PERCEPTION” (1-back recognition)

5. fMRI Studies LO = lateral occipital complex –Recognition area in ventral stream AIP = anterior intraparietal complex –Grasping area in dorsal stream

6. Methods Participants –N=7, age 23-33, R-handed, fMRI experienced Design –1 scan session of grasping task –1 scan session of recognition task

7. Grasping Task

8. Grasparatus

9. Recognition Task Intact Objects –Grayscale –Line Drawings –Familiar and Novel Scrambled

10. Event-Related fMRI Removed motion-related artifact Blocked response types –Grasp, Reach, (No response) ITI = 14 s

11. Imaging & Analyses 4-Tesla system, head coil 13 T*-2 slices every 2 s –Parallel to calcarine sulcus T1 structural images Cortical surface-based analysis

12. Results 1)Functionally define ROIs 2)Reverse comparisons

13. AIP in Grasping (fig2a)

14. AIP Grasping: Time Course (fig4a - Left IPS time course)

15. AIP Grasping: Representative Individual (fig3b)

16. LO in Object Recognition (fig2b)

17. LO Recognition (fig4d – Left time course) Intact Scrambled

18. LO Recognition: Object Type (fig5a)

19. Cross Comparisons 1) AIP in Recognition 2)LO in Grasping

20. AIP in Recognition (fig4b – Right IPS data) Intact Scrambled

21. AIP Recognition: Object Type (fig5b)

22. Recognition: LO vs AIP (fig3c)

23. Grasp & Reach vs ITI (fig3a)

24. LO: Grasping = Reaching (fig4c – Left data) Grasping Reaching

25. Comparison Map (fig3d)

26. Discussion Is AIP activated by Intact-Scrambled? Is LO activated by Grasping-Reaching? Results support hypotheses How much do they specify the processes unique to AIP and LO?

27. AIP: Contrasts in Grasping Task Grasp -Reach –G requires info to preshape hand –More goal directed(?) G&R – dark ITI –Both above baseline –Why this baseline? What happened to the ‘no response’ condition (Blue LED)?

28. LO: Contrasts in 1-Back Task Intact-Scrambled –ID and meaning –Recognition – a misnomer? Novel > Familiar; Adaptation of LO I&S – fixation on dot –Only I greater –Alternative baselines – role of 1-back? Scrambled-Intact –Rationale? Interpretation?

29. Task Comparisons “AIP is activated more strongly by grasping, when object information is required to preshape the hand, but does not respond to images of objects in the absence of action” “LO is activated more strongly by objects than scrambled control images, but shows no enhanced activity when real objects are the targets for grasping compared to reaching”

30. “Real” vs Images Potential for grasping a requirement of AIP? Different stimulus types complicate direct comparisons Recognition of ‘real’ rectangles –LO adaptation Grasping of complex objects (e.g., tools) –AIP in viewing of graspable objects

31. AIP: Scrambled-Intact Attentional and spatial demands – S>I? –I>S? (Kourtzi & Kanwisher, 2000) Is G-R accounted for by attentional demands? –Overlap of G-R and S-C?

32. Conclusions Was the study objective addressed? Did results support hypotheses? How conclusive are the findings? How/why might additional and/or alternative contrast analyses be valuable?