Literature DB >> 15278330

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

Matthew Heath1, Christina Rival, Gordon Binsted.   

Abstract

The goal of the present investigation was to determine the time-course by which the motor system might resolve the context-dependent effects of a visual illusion [i.e., the Müller-Lyer (ML) figure]. Specifically, we asked participants to scale their grip aperture (GA) to the perceived size of an object embedded within a ML figure in advance of closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) grasping movements. As a result, premovement GA was biased in a direction consistent with the perceptual effects of the illusion. We reasoned that such a manipulation might provide a novel opportunity to determine whether the motor system is able to resolve a biased GA immediately following the onset of a response [i.e., in accord with the perception/action model (PAM); Milner and Goodale 1995, The visual brain in action, Oxford University Press], or gradually as the action unfolds [i.e., in accord with the planning/control model (PCM); Glover and Dixon 2002, Percept Psychophys 64:266-278]. It was found that biasing GA in advance of movement resulted in a reliable effect of the ML figure throughout CL and OL trials (i.e., up to 80% of grasping time). Although the present findings appear contrary to the theoretical tenets of the PAM and the PCM, it is proposed that biasing GA in advance of movement leads to offline visual processing and a feedforward mode of grasping control, thus accounting for the illusion-induced effect throughout the grasping response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15278330     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-004-1988-9

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


  27 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.  Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics.

Authors:  Y Hu; M A Goodale
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Visual awareness and the on-line modification of action.

Authors:  J H Fecteau; R Chua; I Franks; J T Enns
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2001-06

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.  Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action.

Authors:  David A Westwood; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2003

6.  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

7.  Large adjustments in visually guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement.

Authors:  M A Goodale; D Pelisson; C Prablanc
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1986 Apr 24-30       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.  A kinematic theory of rapid human movements. Part I. Movement representation and generation.

Authors:  R Plamondon
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.086

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

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

1.  Antisaccades exhibit diminished online control relative to prosaccades.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Katie Dunham; Gordon Binsted; Bryan Godbolt
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Vector inversion diminishes the online control of antisaccades.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Jeffrey Weiler; Kendall Marriott; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  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

4.  No evidence of a lower visual field specialization for visuomotor control.

Authors:  Gord Binsted; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-10-23       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Effects of an orientation illusion on motor performance and motor imagery.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Peter Dixon; Umberto Castiello; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  The type of visual information mediates eye and hand movement bias when aiming to a Müller-Lyer illusion.

Authors:  Ann Lavrysen; Werner F Helsen; Digby Elliott; Martinus J Buekers; Peter Feys; Elke Heremans
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Goal-directed reaching: movement strategies influence the weighting of allocentric and egocentric visual cues.

Authors:  Kristina A Neely; Ayla Tessmer; Gordon Binsted; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-12-18       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Anti-pointing is mediated by a perceptual bias of target location in left and right visual space.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Anika Maraj; Ashlee Gradkowski; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Visuomotor memory is independent of conscious awareness of target features.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Kristina A Neely; Jason Yakimishyn; Gordon Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Online corrections can produce illusory bias during closed-loop pointing.

Authors:  C Ehresman; D Saucier; M Heath; G Binsted
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-04-22       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.