Brodmann's area 44 (pIFG-BA44). The articulatory network 2 is for motor phoneme programs and is located in the left M1-vBA6. Conduction aphasia affects a subject's ability to reproduce speech (typically by repetition), though it has no influence on the subject's ability to comprehend spoken language. This shows that conduction aphasia must reflect not an impairment of the auditory ventral pathway but instead of the auditory dorsal pathway. Buchsbaum et al found that conduction aphasia can be the result of damage, particularly lesions, to the Spt (Sylvian parietal temporal). This is shown by the Spt's involvement in acquiring new vocabulary, for while experiments have shown that most conduction aphasiacs can repeat high-frequency, simple words, their ability to repeat low-frequency, complex words is impaired. The Spt is responsible for connecting the motor and auditory systems by making auditory code accessible to the motor cortex. It appears that the motor cortex recreates high-frequency, simple words (like cup) in order to more quickly and efficiently access them, while low-frequency, complex words (like Sylvian parietal temporal) require more active, online regulation by the Spt. This explains why conduction aphasiacs have particular difficulty with low-frequency words which requires a more hands-on process for speech production. "Functionally, conduction aphasia has been characterized as a deficit in the ability to encode phonological information for production," namely because of a disruption in the motor-auditory interface. Conduction aphasia has been more specifically related to damage of the arcuate fasciculus, which is vital for both speech and language comprehension, as the arcuate fasiculus makes up the connection between Broca and Wernicke's areas. Criticisms Goodale & Milner's innovation was to shift the perspective from an emphasis on input distinctions, such as object location versus properties, to an emphasis on the functional relevance of vision to behaviour, for perception or for action. Contemporary perspectives however, informed by empirical work over the past two decades, offer a more complex account than a simple separation of function into two-streams. Recent experimental work for instance has challenged these findings, and has suggested that the apparent dissociation between the effects of illusions on perception and action is due to differences in attention, task demands, and other confounds. There are other empirical findings, however, that cannot be so easily dismissed which provide strong support for the idea that skilled actions such as grasping are not affected by pictorial illusions. Moreover, recent neuropsychological research has questioned the validity of