Literature DB >> 27553269

Both vision-for-perception and vision-for-action follow Weber's law at small object sizes, but violate it at larger sizes.

Nicola Bruno1, Stefano Uccelli2, Eva Viviani2, Claudio de'Sperati3.   

Abstract

According to a previous report, the visual coding of size does not obey Weber's law when aimed at guiding a grasp (Ganel et al., 2008a). This result has been interpreted as evidence for a fundamental difference between sensory processing in vision-for-perception, which needs to compress a wide range of physical objects to a restricted range of percepts, and vision-for-action when applied to the much narrower range of graspable and reachable objects. We compared finger aperture in a motor task (precision grip) and perceptual task (cross modal matching or "manual estimation" of the object's size). Crucially, we tested the whole range of graspable objects. We report that both grips and estimations clearly violate Weber's law with medium-to-large objects, but are essentially consistent with Weber's law with smaller objects. These results differ from previous characterizations of perception-action dissociations in the precision of representations of object size. Implications for current functional interpretations of the dorsal and ventral processing streams in the human visual system are discussed.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Action; Manual estimation; Perception; Precision; Precision grip; Weber's law

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27553269     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  9 in total

1.  Manual estimations of functionally graspable target objects adhere to Weber's law.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Joseph Manzone
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Weber's law in 2D and 3D grasping.

Authors:  Aviad Ozana; Tzvi Ganel
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-09-04

3.  Dissociable effects of irrelevant context on 2D and 3D grasping.

Authors:  Aviad Ozana; Tzvi Ganel
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Hand anthropometry and the limits of aperture separation determine the utility of Weber's law in grasping and manual estimation.

Authors:  Naila Ayala; Gordon Binsted; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  On the response function and range dependence of manual estimation.

Authors:  Karl K Kopiske; Fulvio Domini
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  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

7.  Bimanual grasping does not adhere to Weber's law.

Authors:  Tzvi Ganel; Gal Namdar; Avigail Mirsky
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Different strategies in pointing tasks and their impact on clinical bedside tests of spatial orientation.

Authors:  J Gerb; T Brandt; M Dieterich
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 6.682

9.  Why some size illusions affect grip aperture.

Authors:  Jeroen B J Smeets; Erik Kleijn; Marlijn van der Meijden; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.