Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pictures, Emotions, and the Dorsal/Ventral Account of Picture Perception

  • Published:
Review of Philosophy and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Everyday life suggests that picture seeing is sometimes infused by an emotional charge. However, nobody has addressed the importance of explaining this emotional charge in picture perception. Even our best model of picture perception, the dorsal/ventral account of picture perception, which integrates the most important empirical results coming from our best model on vision in neuroscience, the two visual systems model, lacks a reference to this emotional charge. The aim of the present paper is to offer an account of picture perception that is able to regain and explain this neglected emotional charge. My claim is that, as for face-to-face perception, during picture perception, we are not only in a visual perceptual state, but also in an emotional state, which is directly connected to our visual perceptual state. I also show that it is possible to offer this integration while remaining in the philosophical/empirical framework of the dorsal/ventral account of picture perception, whose explanatory power is confirmed and improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Thanks to Alberto Voltolini for offering several comments on this point.

  2. This paper is not defending a representationalist point of view at the expense of the anti-representationalist one. Everything that is said here can be reformulated in anti-representationalist terms (e.g., presentation).

  3. There is an ongoing debate about the real extent of such dissociation (the literature is too large to survey, see Nanay 2013, 2015; Briscoe 2009; Zipoli and Ferretti 2016). However, since anatomo-functional distinction is granted even if we admit a degree of interstream interplay, and since the DVAPP assumes such dissociation, this paper can bypass this issue and assume dissociation as well.

  4. For further related divisions concerning our visual system, see (Kravitz et al. 2011).

  5. Also, while dorsal perception is taken to be unconscious, we have no crucial evidence that this is the case (Nanay 2015: 187) and interstream interaction suggests that it might be in principle consciously accessible (Briscoe 2009; Ferretti 2016b, c). This avoids the problems about the conscious nature of both streams with respect to the ECPP.

  6. Very special thanks go to Bence Nanay, Alberto Voltolini, and Silvano Zipoli Caiani for precious and insightful comments on previous versions of this paper. I also warmly thank two anonymous referees for addressing several important comments.

References

  • Abell, C., and K. Bantilaki (eds.). 2010. Philosophical perspectives on depiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Algom, D., E. Chajut, and S. Lev. 2004. A rational look at the emotional stroop phenomenon: a generic slowdown, not a stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 133: 323–338. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amrhein, C., A. Mühlberger, P. Pauli, and G. Wiedemann. 2004. Modulation of event-related brain potentials during affective picture processing: a complement to startle reflex and skin conductance response? International Journal of Psychophysiology 54(3): 231–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anelli, F., A.M. Borghi, and R. Nicoletti. 2012. Grasping the pain: motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition 21: 1627–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmaro, D., P.L. Carolan, and M. Liotti. 2014. Electrophysiological evidence of early attentional bias to drug-related pictures in chronic cannabis users. Addictive Behaviors 39(1): 114–21. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenanti, A., D. Bueti, G. Galati, and S.M. Aglioti. 2005. Transcranial magnetic stimulation highlights the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain. Nature Neuroscience 8: 955–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenanti, A., I. Minio-Paluello, I. Bufalari, and S.M. Aglioti. 2006. Stimulus-driven modulation of motor-evoked potentials during observation of others’ pain. NeuroImage 32: 316–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avenanti, A., A. Sirigu, and S.M. Aglioti. 2010. Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology 20: 1018–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, M., K.S. Kassam, A.S. Ghuman, J. Boshyan, A.M. Schmid, A.M. Dale, M.S. Hamalainen, K. Marinkovic, D.L. Schacter, B.R. Rosen, and E. Halgren. 2006. Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 449–454. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507062103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbas, H., and J. De Olmos. 1990. Projections from the amygdala to basoventral and mediodorsal prefrontal regions in the rhesus monkey. Journal of Comparative Neurology 300: 549–571. doi:10.1002/cne.903000409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlassina, L., and A. Newen. 2013. The role of bodily perception in emotion: in defense of an impure somatic theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89(3): 637–678. doi:10.1111/phpr.12041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L.F., and L.F. Bar. 2009. See it with feeling: affective predictions during object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 364: 1325–1334. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K.C., and P. Winkielman. 2003. What is an unconscious emotion? (The case for unconscious “liking”). Cognition and Emotion 17(2): 181–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A.M., and L. Riggio. 2015. Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9: 351. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, R. 2009. Egocentric spatial representation in action and perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79: 423–60.

  • Briscoe, R. 2016. Depiction, Pictorial Experience, and Vision Science, in C. Hill and B. McLaughlin (eds) Philosophical Topics, special issue on Appearance Properties, Volume 44 (2). 

  • Buccino, G., M. Sato, L. Cattaneo, F. Rodà, and L. Riggio. 2009. Broken affordances, broken objects: a TMS study. Neuropsychologia 47: 3074–3078. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullier, J. 2001. Integrated model of visual processing. Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews 36: 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caligiore, D., A.M. Borghi, D. Parisi, R. Ellis, A. Cangelosi, and G. Baldassarre. 2013. How affordances associated with a distractor object affect compatibility effects: a study with the computational model TRoPICALS. Psychological Research 77: 7–19. doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0424-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, L.L., and A. Martin. 2000. Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage 12: 478–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codispoti, M., and A. De Cesarei. 2007. Arousal and attention: picture size and emotional reactions. Psychophysiology 44(5): 680–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R., G. Bird, C. Catmur, C. Press, and C. Heyes. 2014. Mirror neurons: from origin to function. Behavioral and Brain Ssciences 37: 177–241. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13000903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., E. Ambrosini, G. Tieri, C. Sinigaglia, and G. Committeri. 2010. Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordance in space. Experimental Brain Research 207: 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, A.D. 2009. How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 59–70. doi:10.1038/nrn2555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, B.N., et al. 2000. Brain potentials in affective picture processing: covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology 52: 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Sousa, R.E. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/emotion/>.

  • Döring, S.A. 2007. Seeing what to do: affective perception and rational motivation. Dialectica 61: 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, S., and L.F. Barrett. 2007. Affect as a form of cognition: a neurobiological analysis. Cognition & Emotion 21: 1184–1211. doi:10.1080/02699930701437931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R., R.J. Dolan, and C.D. Frith. 2000. Dissociable functions in the medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortex: evidence from human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 10(3): 308–317. doi:10.1093/cercor/10.3.308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, S., M. Tinazzi, D. Le Pera, and M. Valeriani. 2003. Pain-related modulation of the human motor cortex. Neurological Research 25: 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. 2016a. Pictures, action properties and motor related effects. Synthese Special Issue Neuroscience and Its Philosophy 193(12): 3787–3817. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1097-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. 2016b. Through the forest of motor representations. Consciousness and Cognition 43: 177–196. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. 2016c. Visual feeling of presence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. doi:10.1111/papq.12170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G., and Chinellato, E. (In press). Can our robots rely on an emotionally charged vision-for-action? An embodied model for neurorobotics. In Blended cognition. The robotic challenge, eds Vallverdú J., and Müller V.C. Springer Verlag.

  • Gallese, V. 2005. Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Science 4: 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V. 2007. The “Conscious” dorsal stream: embodied simulation and its role in space and action conscious awareness. Psyche 13(1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghashghaei, H.T., and H. Barbas. 2002. Pathways for emotion: interactions of prefrontal and anterior temporal pathways in the amygdala of the rhesus monkey. Neuroscience 115: 1261–1279. doi:10.1016/S0306-4522(02)00446-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glotzbach, E., A. Mühlberger, K. Gschwendtner, A.J. Fallgatter, P. Pauli, and M.J. Herrmann. 2011. Prefrontal brain activation during emotional processing: A Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy Study (fNIRS). Open Neuroimaging Journal 5: 33–9. doi:10.2174/1874440001105010033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grezes, J., and J. Decety. 2002. Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia 40: 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajcak, G., C. Molnar, M.S. George, K. Bolger, J. Koola, and Z. Nahas. 2007. Emotion facilitates action: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study of motor cortex excitability during picture viewing. Psychophysiology 44(1): 91–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, H., R. Schwartz, and M. Atherton (eds.). 2003. Looking into pictures: an interdisciplinary approach to pictorial space. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.L., A.N. Meltzoff, and J. Decety. 2005. How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage 24: 771–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, P., and M. Jeannerod. 2003. Ways of seeing the scope and limits of visual cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E.R., Schwartz J.H., Jessell T.M., Siegelbaum S.A., and Hudspeth A.J. 2013. Principles of neural science. McGrawHill Medical.

  • Keil, A., et al. 2002. Large-scale neural correlates of affective picture viewing. Psychophysiology 39: 641–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalsa, S.S., D. Rudrauf, J.S. Feinstein, and D. Tranel. 2009. The pathways of interoceptive awareness. Nature Neuroscience 12(12): 1494–1496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohno, S., M. Noriuchi, Y. Iguchi, Y. Kikuchi, and Y. Hoshi. 2015. Emotional discrimination during viewing unpleasant pictures: timing in human anterior ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9: 51. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00051. eCollection 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, D.J., K.I. Saleem, C.I. Baker, and M. Mishkin. 2011. A new neural framework for visuospatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12: 217–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreplin, U., and S.H. Fairclough. 2013. Activation of the rostromedial prefrontal cortex during the experience of positive emotion in the context of esthetic experience. An fNIRS study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 879. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00879. eCollection 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreplin, U., and S.H. Fairclough. 2015. Effects of self-directed and other-directed introspection and emotional valence on activation of the rostral prefrontal cortex during aesthetic experience. Neuropsychologia 71: 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laycock, R., S.G. Crewther, and D.P. Crewther. 2007. A role for the “magnocellular advantage” in visual impairments in neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 31: 363–376. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pera, D., T. Graven-Nielsen, M. Valeriani, A. Oliviero, V. Di Lazzaro, P.A. Tonali, et al. 2001. Inhibition of motor system excitability at cortical and spinal level by tonic muscle pain. Clinical Neurophysiology 112: 1633–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, J. 1998. Wollheim on pictorial representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56: 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, D.M. 1996. Understanding pictures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, D.M. 2005. Sight and sensibility: Evaluating pictures. Oxford University Press.

  • Matthen, M. 2005. Seeing, doing and knowing: a philosophical theory of sense perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matthen, M. 2010. Two visual systems and the feeling of presence. In Perception, action, and consciousness: Sensorimotor dynamics and the two visual systems, eds. Gangopadhyay, N., Madary, M., and Spencer, F. 107-124. Oxford University Press.

  • Milner, A. D., and Goodale M. A. 1995/2006. The visual brain in action, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Morrison, I., E. Poliakov, L. Gordon, and P. Downing. 2007. Response-specific effects of pain observation on motor behavior. Cognition 104: 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munakata, Y., S.A. Herd, C.H. Chatham, B.E. Depue, M.T. Banich, and R.C. O’Reilly. 2011. A unified framework for inhibitory control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(10): 453–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanay, B. 2010. Inflected and uninflected experience of pictures. In Philosophical perspectives on depiction, ed. C. Abell and K. Bantinaki, 181–207. Oxford: Oxford U.P.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nanay, B. 2011. Perceiving pictures. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10: 461–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanay, B. 2013. Between perception and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nanay, B. 2015. Trompe l’oeil and the dorsal/ventral account of picture perception. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6: 181–197. doi:10.1007/s13164-014-0219-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanay, B. (2017). Threefoldness. Philosophical Studies 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11098-017-0860-2.

  • Nummenmaa, L., J. Hirvonen, R. Parkkola, and J.K. Hietanen. 2008. Is emotional contagion special? An fMRI study on neural systems for affective and cognitive empathy. NeuroImage 43(3): 571–80. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, R.C. 2010. The what and how of prefrontal cortical organization. Trends in Neurosciences 33(8): 355–361. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2010.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, J.K., S. Nordin, H. Sequeira, and J. Polich. 2008. Affective picture processing: an integrative review of ERP findings. Biological Psychology 77(3): 247–65. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pani, P., T. Theys, M.C. Romero, and P. Janssen. 2014. Grasping execution and grasping observation activity of single neurons in the macaque anterior intraparietal area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26(10): 2342–2355. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pessoa, L. 2008. On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2: 148–158. doi:10.1038/nrn2317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M.L., I.M. Marks, C. Senior, D. Lythgoe, A.M. O’Dwyer, O. Meehan, et al. 2000. A differential neural response in obsessive-compulsive disorder patients with washing compared with checking symptoms to disgust. Psychological Medicine 30: 1037–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J.L. 2007. Connections of orbital cortex. In The orbitofrontal cortex, ed. D.H. Zald and S.L. Rauch, 38–56. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, J. 2004. Gut reactions: a perceptual theory of emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proverbio, M.A., R. Adorni, and G.E. D’Aniello. 2011. 250 ms to code for action affordance during observation of manipulable objects. Neuropsychologia 49: 2711–2719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., and Sinigaglia C. 2008. Mirrors in the brain, How our minds share actions and emotions, Oxford University Press.

  • Roberts, R.C. 2003. Emotions: an essay in aid of moral psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M.C., I. Van Dromme, and P. Janssen. 2013. The role of binocular disparity in stereoscopic images of objects in the macaque anterior intraparietal area. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M. C., P. Pani, and P. Janssen. 2014. Coding of shape features in the macaque anterior intraparietal area systems/circuits 4006. The Journal of Neuroscience 34(11), 4006–4021.

  • Scharmüller, W., S. Ubel, V. Leutgeb, F. Schoengassner, A. Wabnegger, and A. Schienle. 2014. Do not think about pain: neural correlates of attention guiding during visual symptom provocation in dental phobia—an fMRI study. Brain Research 1566: 69–76. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2014.04.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schienle, A., R. Stark, B. Walter, C. Blecker, U. Ott, P. Kirsch, G. Sammer, and D. Vaitl. 2002. The insula is not specifically involved in disgust processing: an fMRI study. Neuroreport 13(16): 2023–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schienle, A., A. Schäfer, A. Hermann, B. Walter, R. Stark, and D. Vaitl. 2006. fMRI responses to pictures of mutilation and contamination. Neuroscience Letters 393(2–3): 174–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schupp, H.T., B.N. Cuthbert, M.M. Bradley, J.T. Cacioppo, T. Ito, and P.J. Lang. 2000. Affective picture processing: the late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology 37(2): 257–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schupp, H.T., M. Junghöfer, A.I. Weike, and A.O. Hamm. 2004. The selective processing of briefly presented affective pictures: an ERP analysis. Psychophysiology 41(3): 441–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S.G., H. Klumpp, M. Angstadt, P.J. Nathan, and K.L. Phan. 2009. Amygdala and insula response to emotional images in patients with generalized social anxiety disorder. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience 34(4): 296–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, N.A., Y. Liu, A.G. He, M.M. Bradley, M.C. Lessig, G.A. James, D.J. Stein, P.J. Lang, and W.K. Goodman. 2003. Brain activation by disgust-inducing pictures in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biological Psychiatry 54(7): 751–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. (ed.). 2003. Thinking about feeling: contemporary philosophers on emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, R., A. Schienle, B. Walter, P. Kirsch, G. Sammer, U. Ott, C. Blecker, and D. Vaitl. 2003. Hemodynamic responses to fear and disgust-inducing pictures: an fMRI study. International Journal of Psychophysiology 50(3): 225–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath, D. 2011. Information in surface and depth perception: Reconciling pictures and reality. In Perception beyond Inference. The information content of visual processes, ed. L. Albertazzi, G.J. van Tonder, and D. Vishwanath, 201–240. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath, D. 2014. Toward a new theory of stereopsis. Psychological Review 121(2): 151–178. doi:10.1037/a0035233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voltolini, A. 2013. Why, as responsible for figurativity, seeing-in can only be inflected seeing-in. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14(3): 651–667. doi:10.1007/s11097-013-9335-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuilleumier, P., J.L. Armony, J. Driver, and R.J. Dolan. 2001. Effects of attention and emotion on face processing in the human brain: an event-related fMRI study. Neuron 30: 829–841. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00328-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, D., J. Danckert, P. Servos, and M. Goodale. 2002. Grasping two- dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Experimental Brain Research 144(2): 262–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollheim, R. 1980. Seeing-as, seeing-in, and pictorial representation. In Art and its object (2nd ed., pp. 205–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wollheim, R. 1987. Painting as an art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollheim, R. 1998. On pictorial representation. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56: 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P., G. He, N.A. Shapira, W.K. Goodman, and Y. Liu. 2004. Disgust and the insula: fMRI responses to pictures of mutilation and contamination. Neuroreport 15(15): 2347–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zald, D.H., and S.L. Rauch (eds.). 2007. The orbitofrontal cortex, 38–56. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipoli Caiani, S. 2013. Extending the notion of affordance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 13: 275–293. doi:10.1007/s11097-013-9295-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zipoli Caiani, S., and G. Ferretti. 2016. Semantic and pragmatic integration in vision for action. Consciousness and Cognition 48: 40–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.10.009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pure and Applied Science, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Timoteo Viti, 10, Urbino, PU, 61029, Italy

    Gabriele Ferretti

Authors
  1. Gabriele Ferretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Ferretti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferretti, G. Pictures, Emotions, and the Dorsal/Ventral Account of Picture Perception. Rev.Phil.Psych. 8, 595–616 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0330-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0330-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation