Literature DB >> 26245648

How preparation to touch or grasp alters visual size perception.

Peter M Vishton1, Evan D Jones, Jennifer A Stevens.   

Abstract

Prior studies have suggested that visually guided actions are resistant to the effects of some pictorial size illusions, e.g., the maximum grip aperture component of a grasp for an element of the Ebbinghaus illusion display. We present evidence that when participants prepare to grasp, the reduction in illusion magnitude observed for action components is also present for conscious perceptual judgments. Our studies characterize how visual size perception changes when we choose to engage in different size-mediated behaviors. Even when the stimuli used were identical for two different tasks, we found that available information was processed differently. In the studies, participants always selected which of the two targets was larger. In some conditions, the context in which the targets were presented induced a visual illusion of size. We varied the sizes of target pairs to assess the magnitude of these visual illusions. In some tasks, participants indicated their size choice verbally. For other tasks, participants reached to grasp or touch the target that they perceived as larger. Illusion magnitudes were smaller when participants engaged in actions directed at a target or when participants imagined performing those actions. This shift in visual processing persisted for several minutes after participants switched back to a verbal, non-grasping, non-touch task. A motor interference task eliminated the reduction in illusion magnitude.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26245648     DOI: 10.1007/s10339-015-0686-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Process        ISSN: 1612-4782


  16 in total

1.  The Judd illusion: evidence for two visual streams or two experimental conditions?

Authors:  M Mon-Williams; R Bull
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-01       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.  Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study.

Authors:  J Grèzes; J Decety
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.139

4.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES.

Authors:  P M FITTS; J R PETERSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1964-02

Review 5.  Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action.

Authors:  Scott Glover
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 12.579

6.  Planning to reach for an object changes how the reacher perceives it.

Authors:  Peter M Vishton; Nicolette J Stephens; Lauren A Nelson; Sarah E Morra; Kaitlin L Brunick; Jennifer A Stevens
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-08

7.  The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception.

Authors:  A M Haffenden; M A Goodale
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 8.  Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate?

Authors:  J Decety
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  1996-03

9.  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

10.  Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it.

Authors:  Jessica K Witt; Dennis R Proffitt; William Epstein
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.