Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this review is to address possible limitations of the neurobiological approach to understanding psychiatric disorders. Neurobiological approach helps to resolve the mind-body dualism and develop new assessment and treatment approaches in psychiatry. However, it could be a problem to place too much emphasis on certain aspects of neurobiology, specifically structural neuroanatomy, because of the complexity or comorbidity of neuropsychiatric disorders. Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), for instance, is generally related to problems in motor skills and this movement disability is often related to perception. One account, two visual systems theory, relied on functional distinction in brain; ventral stream is responsible for visual recognition (perceptual representation), and dorsal stream is responsible for the guidance of actions. Numerous neuropsychological and neurophysiological studies have suggested that there are two separate visual streams. What then can we understand of DCD from this neuroanatomical approach? Studies are now showing that shape perception is relevant to visually guided action, such as reaching-to-grasp an object. In retrospect, it is not so surprising that we would need information about 3D shape to interact with 3D structure. In this article, I reviewed fundamental findings of two-visual system theory and suggested problems of visually guided action to consider what shape perception implies for the hypothesis that there are two separate visual streams in the brain. Questions raised highlight possible limitations of adopting a structural neuroanatomical approach to account for perception and action effects, and by extent related psychiatric conditions such as DCD. In conclusion, neurobiological approach in neuropsychiatry, while useful, would be limited if it focuses too much on anatomical distinction.
Highlights
Psychiatry has been continuously developing and adopted a neurobiological approach
In this article I attempt to address a possible limitation of the neurobiological approach in neuropsychiatry, with regards to structural neuroanatomy
This is consistent with a commentary of Dar etal. [47] in which neurobiological approach should be cohesive with other approaches because humans are influenced by many other factors
Summary
Psychiatry has been continuously developing and adopted a neurobiological approach. both psychiatry and neurology rest on a foundation of clinical neuroscience, these two areas are subsequently separated and are typically practiced differently. There are patients where the inferotemporal cortex, a major part of the ventral stream, is damaged These patients suffer from visual form agnosia, manifesting difficulties in recognizing or describing objects, faces, drawings, or abstract designs, even though they have no difficulty in using visual information to control and guide motor behavior. The difference in the pattern of activation in LOC and cIPS reflects the difference in the role of the ventral and dorsal stream The former is for object recognition and the latter is for visuomotor behavior. The ventral system is involved primarily in object recognition using visual information of an object’s features, such as size, orientation and shape, whereas the dorsal system involved primarily in the control and guidance of visuomotor behavior using these same object features. Is the ventral stream really separated from the dorsal stream? Some questions arise from the studies supporting the two visual systems theory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
