4.9 Scenario Visualization: The Neurobiological Evidence

Earlier, I noted that the neural wiring necessary for scenario visualization

would had to have been in place in our species by 40,000 ya. The neurobiological

evidence for scenario visualization begins with the fact that the

brain is wired in such a way that this activity can occur. The visual system

is intimately tied to memory, planning, and motor systems in the brain.

Studies have shown that the prefrontal region contains a complete map of

the contralateral visual fi eld. This map can be used for visual short-term

and working memory, as Finke (1986) and Goldman-Rakic (1996) have

demonstrated (also see Smith, Jonides, & Koeppe, 1996; Smith & Jonides,

1997). Recall from the last chapter that iconic memory is necessary to hold

a percept in our visual fi eld long enough for the information it conveys to

be processed by the visual system. Recordings from the dorsolateral prefrontal

cortex of adult monkeys have shown that some neurons respond

only when spatial information had to be stored, while other neurons

responded only when visual-object information had to be maintained

briefl y, as Funahashi, Bruce, & Goldman-Rakic (1989) and Wilson et al.

(1993) report.

Also, we know that visual attention requires subcortical structures such

as the pulvinar, claustrum, and superior colliculus, as well as the prefrontal

cortex (Farah, 1984; Kandel et al., 2000). Visual awareness and planning

involve the frontal cortices, which receive projections from the higher, specialized visual areas, such as V4 and V5. The dorsolateral prefrontal

cortex receives projections from the posterior parietal cortex (part of the

where visual trajectory), and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex receives

projections from the IT cortex (part of the what visual trajectory). The

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex integrates multimodal sensory information

and is involved in the generation of hypotheses, planning, goal direction,

and the deployment of strategies (Fuster, 1997; Passingham, 1993).

We know that areas of the brain involved in problem solving also involve

the visual system. For example, Dehaene & Changeux (1989, 1991, 1997,

2000) have reported that damage to the dorsolateral and ventrolateral

prefrontal areas associated with problem solving cause memory loss,

delayed responses, and loss of attention. These same prefrontal areas

receive projections from the what and the where visual systems. Thus, these

patients can determine the what and the where of objects they are looking

at, but they have problems utilizing these visual images in possible visual

scenarios.

Further, the prefrontal cortex is part of the heteromodal association

cortex, which includes part of the superior temporal and inferior parietal

cortices. These regions are all linked in a cognitive network that controls

executive functions, attention, social interaction, language, working

memory, and future planning. They also link to limbic areas and so play

a primary role in drive, mood, and personality. The prefrontal cortex is

really the seat of all distinctively human characteristics and is the latest

evolutionary installment (MacLean, 1967). Note that these areas are

involved in memory and future planning. Again, such activities would

require, at times, the formation of visual images and scenario visualization.

It is arguable that future planning is nothing other than the generation of

visual images, possibly from memory (which could take the cognitive form

of another visual image), and the projecting of these images into possible

visual scenarios for the purpose of achieving some goal, solving some

problem, or negotiating some environment (Weisberg, 1995).

Kosslyn et al. (1999a, 1999b, 2001) used fMRI and transcranial magnetic

stimulation tests to identify regions that were active during visual imagery.

Subjects were shown a complex series of stimuli and then were asked to

close their eyes to make judgments about what they had just seen. Kosslyn

et al. found that V1, which is normally active during visual perception, is

active during visual imagery as well. Imagining objects in the mind seems

similar to inspecting an object in the world and would appear to draw on

the same underlying neurological processes. Such results should not appear

surprising, since imagery, like vision, can be a helpful guide in the world.

The Evolution of the Visual System and Scenario Visualization 131

An animal that could visualize moves before actually making them could

be in a much better position to succeed in feeding, fi ghting, mating, and

so forth. As Sekuler & Blake (2002, p. 248) claim, “Imagery makes it possible

for us to envision the consequences of some behavior without actually

going through the motions.”

The visual system interacts with many other parts of the brain and

nervous system, making for a complex ensemble in which visual cognition

and human action are linked. Many brain regions contribute to effi cient

behavior—toolmaking, socializing, or otherwise. The prefrontal cortex

plays a major executive and supervisory role in the intelligent development

of behavior (Joffe & Dunbar, 1997; Passingham, 1993; Fuster, 1997). The

premotor cortex selects movement sequences that are contextually appropriate

and, along with the basal ganglia, releases them through the primary

motor cortex. The cerebellum handles the automatized and timed coordination

of individual muscles. Sherwood et al. (2003) have argued that

Meynert cells of the primary visual cortex and Betz cells of the primary

motor cortex may have evolved together because their axons and dendrites

make multiple synaptic connections and, hence, play an important role in

the integration of sensorimotor information. This would make sense from

an evolutionary perspective, since negotiation of space by an arboreal

dweller, such as a monkey, requires the interaction of vision and manual

dexterity. In the words of Churchland, Barlow, Ramachandran, & Sejnowski

(1994, pp. 59–60): “Obviously visual systems evolved not for the achievement

of sophisticated visual perception as an end in itself, but because

visual perception can serve motor control and motor control can serve

vision to better serve motor control, and so on. What evolution ‘cares

about’ is who survives, and that means, basically, who excels in the four

Fs: feeding, fl eeing, fi ghting and reproducing.”

The impression one gets when considering the relationship of the wiring

of the visual system to other systems of the brain and nervous system is

that it is one “big smear,” to use the words of Calvin (1998, p. 64). Kandel

et al. (2000, pp. 365–366) remind us that “no part of the nervous system

functions in the same way alone as it does in concert with other parts. . . . It

is unlikely, therefore, that the neural basis of any cognitive function—

thought, memory, perception, and language—will be understood by focusing

on one region of the brain without considering the relationship of that

region to the others.” It is true that the visual system makes direct and

indirect connections with virtually every major area in the brain. However,

this only serves to bolster my point that visualizing is integral in the emergence

of the most complex brain processes. Whether one is constructing tools, rethinking how to handle the next interpersonal confl ict better, plotting

a route through the Rockies, or organizing a poster presentation, one has

the potential to be scenario visualizing.

In this chapter, I traced the evolution of the visual system, beginning

with organisms that developed a light/dark sensitivity area and culminating

in the complex activities involved in an aspect of conscious visual

processing that I call scenario visualization. I did this utilizing the anatomical

evidence from fossils and living species thought to be homologous to

ancient species. I also used evidence from ancient toolmaking techniques,

since the evolution of tools and tool types would seem to parallel the

evolution from noncognitive visual processing, through cognitive visual

processing, to scenario visualization, a form of conscious cognitive visual

processing. I defi ned scenario visualization as a conscious process that

entails selecting pieces of visual information from a wide range of possibilities,

forming a coherent and organized visual cognition, and then projecting

that visual cognition into some suitable imagined scenario for the

purpose of solving some problem posed by the environment that one

inhabits.

Further, I traced the development of the multipurposed javelin from its

meager beginnings as a stick, through the modifi cation of the stick into

the spear, to the specialization of the spear as a javelin equipped with a

launcher. I did this because an explanation was needed of how scenario

visualization emerged in our evolutionary past, and this tool is illustrative

of this emergence that tells a concrete evolutionary story. Finally, I presented

evidence that scenario visualization occurs at a conscious level in

our present-day species. As I showed, support for my suggestion that scenario

visualization occurs in our species, and is a form of conscious behavior,

comes from two broad areas of evidence, namely, psychological and

neurobiological evidence.

In the next chapter, I further explicate the notions of routine problem

solving and nonroutine creative problem solving, as well as show how

scenario visualization fi ts into the evolutionary psychologist’s schematization

of the mind to form a more complete picture of how it is that humans

evolved the ability to solve vision-related, nonroutine creative problems.

Earlier, I noted that the neural wiring necessary for scenario visualization

would had to have been in place in our species by 40,000 ya. The neurobiological

evidence for scenario visualization begins with the fact that the

brain is wired in such a way that this activity can occur. The visual system

is intimately tied to memory, planning, and motor systems in the brain.

Studies have shown that the prefrontal region contains a complete map of

the contralateral visual fi eld. This map can be used for visual short-term

and working memory, as Finke (1986) and Goldman-Rakic (1996) have

demonstrated (also see Smith, Jonides, & Koeppe, 1996; Smith & Jonides,

1997). Recall from the last chapter that iconic memory is necessary to hold

a percept in our visual fi eld long enough for the information it conveys to

be processed by the visual system. Recordings from the dorsolateral prefrontal

cortex of adult monkeys have shown that some neurons respond

only when spatial information had to be stored, while other neurons

responded only when visual-object information had to be maintained

briefl y, as Funahashi, Bruce, & Goldman-Rakic (1989) and Wilson et al.

(1993) report.

Also, we know that visual attention requires subcortical structures such

as the pulvinar, claustrum, and superior colliculus, as well as the prefrontal

cortex (Farah, 1984; Kandel et al., 2000). Visual awareness and planning

involve the frontal cortices, which receive projections from the higher, specialized visual areas, such as V4 and V5. The dorsolateral prefrontal

cortex receives projections from the posterior parietal cortex (part of the

where visual trajectory), and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex receives

projections from the IT cortex (part of the what visual trajectory). The

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex integrates multimodal sensory information

and is involved in the generation of hypotheses, planning, goal direction,

and the deployment of strategies (Fuster, 1997; Passingham, 1993).

We know that areas of the brain involved in problem solving also involve

the visual system. For example, Dehaene & Changeux (1989, 1991, 1997,

2000) have reported that damage to the dorsolateral and ventrolateral

prefrontal areas associated with problem solving cause memory loss,

delayed responses, and loss of attention. These same prefrontal areas

receive projections from the what and the where visual systems. Thus, these

patients can determine the what and the where of objects they are looking

at, but they have problems utilizing these visual images in possible visual

scenarios.

Further, the prefrontal cortex is part of the heteromodal association

cortex, which includes part of the superior temporal and inferior parietal

cortices. These regions are all linked in a cognitive network that controls

executive functions, attention, social interaction, language, working

memory, and future planning. They also link to limbic areas and so play

a primary role in drive, mood, and personality. The prefrontal cortex is

really the seat of all distinctively human characteristics and is the latest

evolutionary installment (MacLean, 1967). Note that these areas are

involved in memory and future planning. Again, such activities would

require, at times, the formation of visual images and scenario visualization.

It is arguable that future planning is nothing other than the generation of

visual images, possibly from memory (which could take the cognitive form

of another visual image), and the projecting of these images into possible

visual scenarios for the purpose of achieving some goal, solving some

problem, or negotiating some environment (Weisberg, 1995).

Kosslyn et al. (1999a, 1999b, 2001) used fMRI and transcranial magnetic

stimulation tests to identify regions that were active during visual imagery.

Subjects were shown a complex series of stimuli and then were asked to

close their eyes to make judgments about what they had just seen. Kosslyn

et al. found that V1, which is normally active during visual perception, is

active during visual imagery as well. Imagining objects in the mind seems

similar to inspecting an object in the world and would appear to draw on

the same underlying neurological processes. Such results should not appear

surprising, since imagery, like vision, can be a helpful guide in the world.

The Evolution of the Visual System and Scenario Visualization 131

An animal that could visualize moves before actually making them could

be in a much better position to succeed in feeding, fi ghting, mating, and

so forth. As Sekuler & Blake (2002, p. 248) claim, “Imagery makes it possible

for us to envision the consequences of some behavior without actually

going through the motions.”

The visual system interacts with many other parts of the brain and

nervous system, making for a complex ensemble in which visual cognition

and human action are linked. Many brain regions contribute to effi cient

behavior—toolmaking, socializing, or otherwise. The prefrontal cortex

plays a major executive and supervisory role in the intelligent development

of behavior (Joffe & Dunbar, 1997; Passingham, 1993; Fuster, 1997). The

premotor cortex selects movement sequences that are contextually appropriate

and, along with the basal ganglia, releases them through the primary

motor cortex. The cerebellum handles the automatized and timed coordination

of individual muscles. Sherwood et al. (2003) have argued that

Meynert cells of the primary visual cortex and Betz cells of the primary

motor cortex may have evolved together because their axons and dendrites

make multiple synaptic connections and, hence, play an important role in

the integration of sensorimotor information. This would make sense from

an evolutionary perspective, since negotiation of space by an arboreal

dweller, such as a monkey, requires the interaction of vision and manual

dexterity. In the words of Churchland, Barlow, Ramachandran, & Sejnowski

(1994, pp. 59–60): “Obviously visual systems evolved not for the achievement

of sophisticated visual perception as an end in itself, but because

visual perception can serve motor control and motor control can serve

vision to better serve motor control, and so on. What evolution ‘cares

about’ is who survives, and that means, basically, who excels in the four

Fs: feeding, fl eeing, fi ghting and reproducing.”

The impression one gets when considering the relationship of the wiring

of the visual system to other systems of the brain and nervous system is

that it is one “big smear,” to use the words of Calvin (1998, p. 64). Kandel

et al. (2000, pp. 365–366) remind us that “no part of the nervous system

functions in the same way alone as it does in concert with other parts. . . . It

is unlikely, therefore, that the neural basis of any cognitive function—

thought, memory, perception, and language—will be understood by focusing

on one region of the brain without considering the relationship of that

region to the others.” It is true that the visual system makes direct and

indirect connections with virtually every major area in the brain. However,

this only serves to bolster my point that visualizing is integral in the emergence

of the most complex brain processes. Whether one is constructing tools, rethinking how to handle the next interpersonal confl ict better, plotting

a route through the Rockies, or organizing a poster presentation, one has

the potential to be scenario visualizing.

In this chapter, I traced the evolution of the visual system, beginning

with organisms that developed a light/dark sensitivity area and culminating

in the complex activities involved in an aspect of conscious visual

processing that I call scenario visualization. I did this utilizing the anatomical

evidence from fossils and living species thought to be homologous to

ancient species. I also used evidence from ancient toolmaking techniques,

since the evolution of tools and tool types would seem to parallel the

evolution from noncognitive visual processing, through cognitive visual

processing, to scenario visualization, a form of conscious cognitive visual

processing. I defi ned scenario visualization as a conscious process that

entails selecting pieces of visual information from a wide range of possibilities,

forming a coherent and organized visual cognition, and then projecting

that visual cognition into some suitable imagined scenario for the

purpose of solving some problem posed by the environment that one

inhabits.

Further, I traced the development of the multipurposed javelin from its

meager beginnings as a stick, through the modifi cation of the stick into

the spear, to the specialization of the spear as a javelin equipped with a

launcher. I did this because an explanation was needed of how scenario

visualization emerged in our evolutionary past, and this tool is illustrative

of this emergence that tells a concrete evolutionary story. Finally, I presented

evidence that scenario visualization occurs at a conscious level in

our present-day species. As I showed, support for my suggestion that scenario

visualization occurs in our species, and is a form of conscious behavior,

comes from two broad areas of evidence, namely, psychological and

neurobiological evidence.

In the next chapter, I further explicate the notions of routine problem

solving and nonroutine creative problem solving, as well as show how

scenario visualization fi ts into the evolutionary psychologist’s schematization

of the mind to form a more complete picture of how it is that humans

evolved the ability to solve vision-related, nonroutine creative problems.