Literature DB >> 12677327

Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle avoidance is not the explanation.

V H Franz1, H H Bülthoff, M Fahle.   

Abstract

The perception-versus-action hypothesis states that visual information is processed in two different streams, one for visual awareness (or perception) and one for motor performance. Previous reports that the Ebbinghaus illusion deceives perception but not grasping seemed to indicate that this dichotomy between perception and action was fundamental enough to be reflected in the overt behavior of non-neurological, healthy humans. Contrary to this view we show that the Ebbinghaus illusion affects grasping to the same extent as perception. We also show that the grasp effects cannot be accounted for by non-perceptual obstacle avoidance mechanisms as has recently been suggested. Instead, even subtle variations of the Ebbinghaus illusion affect grasping in the same way as they affect perception. Our results suggest that the same signals are responsible for the perceptual effects and for the motor effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion. This casts doubt on one line of evidence, which used to strongly favor the perception-versus-action hypothesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12677327     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-002-1364-6

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


  24 in total

1.  Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion?

Authors:  F Pavani; I Boscagli; F Benvenuti; M Rabuffetti; A Farnè
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: support for a planning/control model of action.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Peter Dixon
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-02

3.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

Authors:  G R Loftus; M E Masson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-12

4.  Grasping an illusion.

Authors:  E Daprati; M Gentilucci
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 5.  Towards the neuronal correlate of visual awareness.

Authors:  C Koch; J Braun
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.627

6.  Visual capacity in the hemianopic field following a restricted occipital ablation.

Authors:  L Weiskrantz; E K Warrington; M D Sanders; J Marshall
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1974-12       Impact factor: 13.501

7.  Leter: Residual visual function after brain wounds involving the central visual pathways in man.

Authors:  E Poppel; R Held; D Frost
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1973-06-01       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand.

Authors:  S Aglioti; J F DeSouza; M A Goodale
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1995-06-01       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers.

Authors:  S Coren; J T Enns
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-11

10.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them.

Authors:  M A Goodale; A D Milner; L S Jakobson; D P Carey
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-01-10       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  16 in total

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

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

2.  Rapid decrement in the effects of the Ponzo display dissociates action and perception.

Authors:  Robert L Whitwell; Gavin Buckingham; James T Enns; Philippe A Chouinard; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-08

3.  Effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on grasping are not only due to misjudged size.

Authors:  Denise D J de Grave; Marianne Biegstraaten; Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-03-22       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Grasping reveals visual misjudgements of shape.

Authors:  Raymond H Cuijpers; Eli Brenner; Jeroen B J Smeets
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion are ambiguous.

Authors:  R Gilster; J P Kuhtz-Buschbeck; C D Wiesner; R Ferstl
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-04-25       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on children's perception and grasping.

Authors:  Thomas Duemmler; Volker H Franz; Bianca Jovanovic; Gudrun Schwarzer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-12-05       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The specificity of learned associations in visuomotor and perceptual processing.

Authors:  L Desanghere; J J Marotta
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-02-28       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.  Is simple reaction time affected by visual illusions?

Authors:  Irene Sperandio; Silvia Savazzi; Carlo A Marzi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  The Poggendorff illusion affects manual pointing as well as perceptual judgements.

Authors:  Dean R Melmoth; Marc S Tibber; Simon Grant; Michael J Morgan
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.