The visual coding of grip aperture shows an early but not late adherence to Weber's law

An exemplar metric of goal-directed grasping (i.e., peak grip aperture) has been shown to be refractory to a psychophysical principle governing visuoperceptual estimations of object size (i.e., Weber's law). This dissociation suggests that vision for action and vision for perception are mediated by absolute and relative visual information, respectively. The present investigation examined whether aperture shaping elicits a unitary or process-dependent violation of Weber's law. Participants grasped differently sized objects (20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 mm of width) and just noticeable difference (JND) scores related to grip aperture were computed at the time of peak grip aperture as well as at normalized deciles of the response (i.e., 10-90% of grasping time). JNDs during the early and middle stages of the trajectory scaled to object size whereas values late in the trajectory (>50% of grasping time and including the time of peak grip aperture) did not. Thus, results show an early, but not late, adherence to Weber's law and indicate that movement planning and movement control are supported via relative and absolute visual information, respectively.

[1]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[2]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  Grasping after a Delay Shifts Size-Scaling from Absolute to Relative Metrics , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  D. Westwood,et al.  Time Course Analysis of Closed- and Open-Loop Grasping of the Müller-Lyer Illusion , 2005, Journal of motor behavior.

[4]  M. Goodale,et al.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand , 1995, Current Biology.

[5]  Tzvi Ganel,et al.  Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles , 2008, Current Biology.

[6]  S. Glover,et al.  Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Allocentric visual cues influence online limb adjustments. , 2007, Motor control.

[9]  M. Jeannerod The timing of natural prehension movements. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[10]  M. Heath,et al.  Visual feedback schedules influence visuomotor resistance to the Müller-Lyer figures , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  S. Glover,et al.  The role of vision in the on-line correction of illusion effects on action. , 2001, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[12]  V. Franz,et al.  Action does not resist visual illusions , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  M. Goodale,et al.  A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[15]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[16]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  Visually guided pointing, the Müller-Lyer illusion, and the functional interpretation of the dorsal-ventral split: Conclusions from 33 independent studies , 2008, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[17]  James L. Lyons,et al.  Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[19]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[20]  M. Goodale Transforming vision into action , 2011, Vision Research.

[21]  Peter Dixon,et al.  Motor adaptation to an optical illusion , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Richard Dyde,et al.  Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don't? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.