Literature DB >> 11713628

Delayed grasping of a Müller-Lyer figure.

D A Westwood1, T McEachern, E A Roy.   

Abstract

Grasping movements are more sensitive to the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion when the response is made after a brief period of visual occlusion. It is unclear whether this effect is due to (1) the elimination of on-line visual feedback, or (2) reliance on a stored perceptual representation of the target for movement planning. Here participants grasped objects from within two forms of a ML figure in four visual conditions (full vision, open-loop, brief delay, and 2-s delay) and estimated object size in the full-vision condition. Peak grasping aperture was influenced by the ML figure in the full-vision condition, although to a much smaller extent than was true for manual size estimation. The effect of the ML figure on peak grasping aperture was substantially increased in the open-loop and delay conditions, which did not differ from one another. These findings highlight the importance of on-line visual feedback for the resistance of grasping to the ML illusion and also call to attention the relevance of task factors such as target previewing, the visuomotor relevance of illusion-inducing elements, and participant strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11713628     DOI: 10.1007/s002210100865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  22 in total

1.  A step and a hop on the Müller-Lyer: illusion effects on lower-limb movements.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Peter Dixon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-10-25       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

Authors:  V H Franz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-07-08       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Hitting moving targets: a dissociation between the use of the target's speed and direction of motion.

Authors:  Anne-Marie Brouwer; Tom Middelburg; Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-07-30       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Christina Rival; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-07-27       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Getting a grip on illusions: replicating Stöttinger et al [Exp Brain Res (2010) 202:79-88] results with 3-D objects.

Authors:  Elisabeth Stöttinger; Jürgen Pfusterschmied; Herbert Wagner; James Danckert; Britt Anderson; Josef Perner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Müller-Lyer figures influence the online reorganization of visually guided grasping movements.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Christina Rival; Kristina Neely; Olav Krigolson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion: not a change in perceived length.

Authors:  Marianne Biegstraaten; Denise D J de Grave; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Division of labour within the visual system: fact or fiction? Which kind of evidence is appropriate to clarify this debate?

Authors:  Elisabeth Stöttinger; Kathrin Soder; Jürgen Pfusterschmied; Herbert Wagner; Josef Perner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-11       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Non-obstructing 3D depth cues influence reach-to-grasp kinematics.

Authors:  Christopher J Worssam; Lewis C Meade; Jason D Connolly
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Vision for action and perception elicit dissociable adherence to Weber's law across a range of 'graspable' target objects.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Joseph Manzone; Michaela Khan; Shirin Davarpanah Jazi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.