Literature DB >> 12851803

Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

V H Franz1.   

Abstract

Manual size estimation (participants indicate the size of an object with index finger and thumb) is often interpreted as a measure of perceptual size information in the visual system, in contrast to size information used by the motor system in visually guided grasping. Because manual estimation is a relatively new measure, I compared it to a more traditional perceptual measure (method of adjustment). Manual estimation showed larger effects of the Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion than the traditional perceptual measure. This inconsistency can be resolved by taking into account that manual estimation is also unusually responsive to a physical variation of size. If we correct for the effect of physical size, manual estimation and the traditional perceptual measure show similar illusion effects. Most interestingly, the corrected illusion effects are also similar to the illusion effects found in grasping. This suggests that the same neuronal signals which generate the illusion in the traditional perceptual measure are also responsible for the effects of the illusion on manual estimation and on grasping.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12851803     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1477-6

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


  29 in total

1.  The effect of illusory size on force production when grasping objects.

Authors:  D A Westwood; A Dubrowski; H Carnahan; E A Roy
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: relative versus absolute, not perception versus action.

Authors:  P M Vishton; J G Rea; J E Cutting; L N Nuñez
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  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

4.  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

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

Authors:  V H Franz; H H Bülthoff; M Fahle
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-02-19       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Grasping an illusion.

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

7.  Delayed grasping of a Müller-Lyer figure.

Authors:  D A Westwood; T McEachern; E A Roy
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 1.972

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.  Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia.

Authors:  David A Westwood; James Danckert; Philip Servos; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-04-10       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping?

Authors:  Volker H Franz
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2003
View more
  20 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Priming of the Sander Parallelogram illusion separates perception from action.

Authors:  Shannon A Senanayake; Tiffany Carther-Krone; Jonathan J Marotta
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The Uznadze illusion reveals similar effects of relative size on perception and action.

Authors:  Stefano Uccelli; Veronica Pisu; Lucia Riggio; Nicola Bruno
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 8.  How (and why) the visual control of action differs from visual perception.

Authors:  Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  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

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.