<mods:mods version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><mods:titleInfo><mods:title>Do we have Independent Visual Streams for Perception and Action? a Response.</mods:title></mods:titleInfo><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">Jason</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">Locklin</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">James</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">Danckert</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:abstract>Schenk and McIntosh (2009) present the thesis that most visual behaviours, especially those of any signiﬁcant complexity, are likely to involve collaboration between both visual streams. While very likely true, this statement does not contradict the perception-action model as proposed by Milner and Goodale (1995, 2006). The two visual system hypothesis implies two functionally specialized systems, and not, as Schenk and McIntosh propose, two behaviourally independent systems.</mods:abstract><mods:classification authority="lcc">Behavioral Neuroscience</mods:classification><mods:originInfo><mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8061">2010-04-12</mods:dateIssued></mods:originInfo><mods:genre>Preprint</mods:genre></mods:mods>