Literature DB >> 8911942

Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object.

E Brenner1, J B Smeets.   

Abstract

Reaching out for an object is often described as consisting of two components that are based on different visual information. Information on the object's position and orientation guides the hand to the object, while information on the object's shape and size determines how the fingers move relative to the thumb to grasp it. We propose an alternative description, which consists of determining suitable positions on the object-on the basis of its shape, surface texture, and so on- and then moving one's thumb and fingers to these positions. This could lead to the same performance without requiring distinct visual information on the object's orientation or size. If so, an illusory change in size need not influence the distance between thumb and fingers when reaching out for an object. However, as the object's size is used to estimate its weight, the illusory change in size should influence the force that is exerted to lift the object. To find out whether this is so, eight subjects were asked to pick up brass disks from a fixed position straight in front of them. The illusory change in size was brought about by presenting five converging lines in two different configurations under the disks. As predicted, the illusion influenced the force used to lift the disks, but not the distance between the subjects' thumbs and fingers when reaching for the disks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8911942     DOI: 10.1007/bf00228737

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


  15 in total

1.  Visual space perception and visually directed action.

Authors:  J M Loomis; J A Da Silva; N Fujita; S S Fukusima
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Visual size cues in the programming of manipulative forces during precision grip.

Authors:  A M Gordon; H Forssberg; R S Johansson; G Westling
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Perceived motion in depth.

Authors:  E Brenner; A V Van Den Berg; W J Van Damme
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 4.  The functional logic of cortical connections.

Authors:  S Zeki; S Shipp
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1988-09-22       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  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

6.  Relation between cognitive and motor-oriented systems of visual position perception.

Authors:  B Bridgeman; S Lewis; G Heit; M Nagle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 7.  Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception.

Authors:  M Livingstone; D Hubel
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-05-06       Impact factor: 47.728

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.  Perception and action are based on the same visual information: distinction between position and velocity.

Authors:  J B Smeets; E Brenner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion.

Authors:  B Bridgemen; M Kirch; A Sperling
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-04
View more
  40 in total

1.  Dissociating perception and action in Kanizsa's compression illusion.

Authors:  Nicola Bruno; Paolo Bernardis
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

2.  A step and a hop on the Müller-Lyer: illusion effects on lower-limb movements.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Peter Dixon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-10-25       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  When does action resist visual illusions? Effector position modulates illusory influences on motor responses.

Authors:  Nicola Bruno; Paolo Bernardis
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Perception-action and the Müller-Lyer illusion: amplitude or endpoint bias?

Authors:  Cheryl M Glazebrook; Victoria P Dhillon; Katherine M Keetch; James Lyons; Eric Amazeen; Daniel J Weeks; Digby Elliott
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Examining the crossmodal consequences of viewing the Müller-Lyer illusion.

Authors:  Alberto Gallace; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  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

7.  Does an auditory perceptual illusion affect on-line auditory action control? The case of (de)accentuation and synchronization.

Authors:  Bruno H Repp
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.