Do intentions for action penetrate visual experience?

Experimental Brain Research, 1996

Consciousness and Cognition, 2009

Since the pioneering work of . Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5(6), 679-685] visual illusions have been used to provide evidence for the functional division of labour within the visual system-one system for conscious perception and the other system for unconscious guidance of action. However, these studies were criticised for attentional mismatch between action and perception conditions and for the fact that grip size is not determined by the size of an object but also by surrounding obstacles. Stoettinger and Perner . Dissociating size representations for action and for conscious judgment: Grasping visual illusions without apparent obstacles. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 269-284] used the diagonal illusion controlling for the influence of surrounding features on grip size and bimanual grasping to rule out attentional mismatch. Unfortunately, the latter objective was not fully achieved. In the present study, attentional mismatch was avoided by using only the dominant hand for action and for indicating perceived size. Results support the division of labour: Grip aperture follows actual size independent of illusory effects, while finger-thumb span indications of perceived length are clearly influenced by the illusion.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2017

Do illusory distortions of perceived object size influence how wide the hand is opened during a grasping movement? Many studies on this question have reported illusion-resistant grasping, but this finding has been contradicted by other studies showing that grasping movements and perceptual judgments are equally susceptible. One largely unexplored explanation for these contradictions is that illusion effects on grasping can be reduced with repeated movements. Using a visuomotor adaptation paradigm, we investigated whether an adaptation model could predict the time course of Ponzo illusion effects on grasping. Participants performed a series of trials in which they viewed a thin wooden target, manually reported an estimate of the target's length, then reached to grasp the target. Manual size estimates (MSEs) were clearly biased by the illusion, but maximum grip apertures (MGAs) of grasping movements were consistently accurate. Illusion-resistant MGAs were observed immediately upon presentation of the illusion, so there was no decrement in susceptibility for the adaptation model to explain. To determine whether online corrections based on visual feedback could have produced illusion-resistant MGAs, we performed an exploratory post hoc analysis of movement trajectories. Early portions of the illusion effect profile evolved as if they were biased by the illusion to the same magnitude as the perceptual responses (MSEs), but this bias was attenuated prior to the MGA. Overall, this preregistered study demonstrated that visuomotor adaptation of grasping is not the primary source of illusion resistance in closed-loop grasping.

It is generally accepted that vision first evolved for the distal control of movement and that perception or 'representational' vision emerged much later. Vision-for-action operates in real time and uses egocentric frames of reference and the real metrics of the world. Vision-for-perception can operate over longer time scales and is much more scene-based in its computations. These differences in the timing and metrics of the two systems have been examined in experiments that have looked at the way in which each system deals with visual illusions. Although controversial, the consensus is that actions such as grasping and reaching are often unaffected by high-level pictorial illusions, which by definition affect perception. However, recent experiments have shown that, for actions to escape the effects of such illusions, they must be highly practiced actions, preferably with the right hand, and must be directed in real time at visible targets. This latter finding suggests that some of the critical components of the encapsulated (bottom-up) systems that mediate the visual control of skilled reaching and grasping movements are lateralised to the left hemisphere.

Neuropsychologia, 2007

The present study examines the contributions of vision for perception processes in action. To this end, the influence of allocentric information on different action components (i.e., the selection of an appropriate mode of action, the pre-planning and online control of movement kinematics) is assessed. Participants (n = 10) were presented with a shaft of various lengths (i.e., 13-20 cm) that was embedded in a Müller-Lyer figure. Picking up the shaft would, dependent on its length, either require a one-or a two-handed grasp. In different conditions participants were instructed to give a verbal judgement on the size of the shaft (VSJ); to make a manual estimation of the shaft's length (MLE); to indicate verbally whether they would grasp the shaft with one-or two hands (VAE); to actually grasp the shaft (G). We found that the Müller-Lyer figure affected the choice between using a one-or two-handed grasp, both when the participants actually grasped (G) the object and when they made a verbal estimation (VAE). The illusionary bias was of a similar magnitude as the one found in the verbal (VSJ) and manual perception task (MLE). The illusion had only a minor influence on the movement kinematics, and appears to be restricted to participants in which the grasping condition was immediately preceded by the VSJ-condition. We conclude that vision for perception contributes to the selection of an action mode, and that its contributions beyond that stage are dependent on the particular (experimental) circumstances.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2001

Experimental Brain Research, 2000

have proposed that visuomotor and perceptual processes are mediated by discrete visual systems that reflect the functional independence of action and perception. The visuomotor system is proposed to be insensitive to pictorial illusions of object size, whereas the perceptual system is reliably "tricked" by such figures. and demonstrated that grasp preshaping, but not grasping force, is immune to the Ponzo visual illusion, suggesting that not all visuomotor processes operate independently of the perceptual system. The present study investigated the effect of illusory object size on prehension kinematics and grasping dynamics (i.e., grip force and load force) as well as perceptual judgements of object size. Unlike previous investigations, object mass was held constant independent of changes in size. The Ponzo figure reliably affected perceptual estimates of object size, but this effect was restricted to one form of the illusion. Some aspects of the prehension movement were sensitive to veridical but not illusory object size (peak grip aperture, peak grip force, peak vertical wrist acceleration), whereas other movement parameters demonstrated illusory size effects (movement time, peak wrist velocity). Still other movement parameters were not sensitive to veridical or illusory object size (peak load force). Together the data suggest that certain prehension components are immune to pictorial illusions of object size, whereas others are not. Complex interactions between the perceptual and visuomotor systems appear to underlie the anticipatory scaling of grasping forces in prehension.

Experimental Brain Research, 2012

The perception versus action hypothesis of Goodale and Milner (Trends Neurosci 15:20-25, 1992) and Milner and Goodale (The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995) postulated two different pathways within the visual system-one for action and one for perception. With the help of pictorial illusions, evidence for this dissociation was found in various studies. There is an ongoing debate, however, as to whether or not this evidence is biased by methodological issues. Indeed, relevant and decisive data can come only from those studies that (1) match conditions appropriately with respect to task demands, (2) use illusions that do not provide any potential obstacles for the hand, (3) do not risk that grasping is either memory driven (when the target is not visible) or online corrected (due to a direct comparison of the grip aperture with the size of the target object), (4) do not confound differences between perception and action conditions with differences in visual feedback, and (5) correct for differences in response functions between grasping and perception. In following all these points outlined above we found support for the perception versus action hypothesis: grip aperture follows actual size independent of illusory effects, while perceived length as indicated by finger-thumb span clearly was subject to the illusion.

2019

Illusions are characterized by inconsistencies. For instance, in the motion aftereffect, we see motion without an equivalent change in position. We used a simple pencil-and-paper experiment to determine whether illusions that influence an object’s apparent size give rise to equivalent changes in apparent positions along the object’s outline. We found different results for two equally strong size illusions. The Ebbinghaus illusion affected perceived positions in a way that was consistent with its influence on perceived size, but a modified diagonal illusion did not affect perceived positions. This difference between the illusions might explain why there are so many conflicting reports about the effects of size illusions on the maximum grip aperture during reach-to-grasp movements.

Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2016

It has often been suggested that visual illusions affect perception but not actions such as grasping, as predicted by the "two-visual-systems" hypothesis of Milner and Goodale (1995, The Visual Brain in Action, Oxford University press). However, at least for the Ebbinghaus illusion, relevant studies seem to reveal a consistent illusion effect on grasping (Franz & Gegenfurtner, 2008. Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology). Two interpretations are possible: either grasping is not immune to illusions (arguing against dissociable processing mechanisms for vision-for-perception and vision-for-action), or some other factors modulate grasping in ways that mimic a vision-for perception effect in actions. It has been suggested that one such factor may be obstacle avoidance (Haffenden Schiff & Goodale, 2001. The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Cu...