DUAL PATHWAYS OR DUELING PATHWAYS FOR VISUAL ANTICIPATION? A RESPONSE TO VAN DER KAMP , RIVAS, VAN DOORN & SAVELSBERGH (2008) Bruce Abernethy & David Mann Abernethy B., Mann D.L. (2008). Dual pathways or dueling pathways for visual anticipation? A response to van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn & Savelsbergh. International Journal of Sport Psychology 39(2): 136‐141 As van der Kamp and co‐authors (2008) correctly point out in their lead article, while there has been substantial reference in recent studies of anticipation in sport to the important distinction drawn by Milner and Goodale (e.g., Goodale & Milner, 1992; Milner & Goodale, 1995) between vision‐for‐perception (provided by a ventral cortical pathway) and vision‐for‐action (provided by a dorsal cortical pathway), there has been very little work done as yet either to thoroughly conceptualise how a dual pathways model of vision might help understand the extant studies on visual anticipation in sport or to verify experimentally the respective dorsal and ventral contributions to anticipation. The article by van der Kamp et al. (2008) presents an initial and important contribution to the former and provides an excellent foundation for the latter. We find ourselves in general agreement with the authors on the major points of their paper and quibbling only with some issues primarily related to the (retrospective) interpretation of existing studies of expert anticipation from a dual pathways’ perspective. First and foremost it is difficult to argue with van der Kamp et al.’s fundamental contention that the distinction between vision‐for‐perception and vision‐for‐action made by Milner and Goodale is an important one and one of direct relevance to the understanding of expert anticipation as it occurs in various sport situations, especially fast ball sports. For a