Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

Manual size estimation (participants indicate the size of an object with index finger and thumb) is often interpreted as a measure of perceptual size information in the visual system, in contrast to size information used by the motor system in visually guided grasping. Because manual estimation is a relatively new measure, I compared it to a more traditional perceptual measure (method of adjustment). Manual estimation showed larger effects of the Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion than the traditional perceptual measure. This inconsistency can be resolved by taking into account that manual estimation is also unusually responsive to a physical variation of size. If we correct for the effect of physical size, manual estimation and the traditional perceptual measure show similar illusion effects. Most interestingly, the corrected illusion effects are also similar to the illusion effects found in grasping. This suggests that the same neuronal signals which generate the illusion in the traditional perceptual measure are also responsible for the effects of the illusion on manual estimation and on grasping.

[1]  W. Darling,et al.  Opposite effects on perception and action induced by the Ponzo illusion , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  D. Carey,et al.  More thoughts on perceiving and grasping the Müller–Lyer illusion , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  David A. Westwood,et al.  Delayed grasping of a Müller-Lyer figure , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  M. Fahle,et al.  Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle avoidance is not the explanation , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  E. C. Fieller.  SOME PROBLEMS IN INTERVAL ESTIMATION , 1954 .

[6]  Volker H Franz,et al.  Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping? , 2003, Spatial vision.

[7]  Heather Carnahan,et al.  The effect of illusory size on force production when grasping objects , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  Paul Milgram,et al.  A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope , 1987 .

[9]  E. C. Fieller.  THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE INDEX IN A NORMAL BIVARIATE POPULATION , 1932 .

[10]  M. Fahle,et al.  P M Max−planck−institut Fü R Biologische Kybernetik the Eeects of Visual Illusions on Grasping , 1999 .

[11]  D. Carey,et al.  Do action systems resist visual illusions? , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  F. Pavani,et al.  Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion? , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[14]  F. Ferris,et al.  New visual acuity charts for clinical research. , 1982, American journal of ophthalmology.

[15]  P. Dixon,et al.  Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  M. Fahle,et al.  Grasping Visual Illusions: No Evidence for a Dissociation Between Perception and Action , 2000, Psychological science.

[17]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  Grasping an illusion , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The Effect of Learned Perceptual Associations on Visuomotor Programming Varies with Kinematic Demands , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion Nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp , 2001, Current Biology.

[20]  Melvyn A Goodale,et al.  Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action , 2000, Vision Research.

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

[22]  S. Jackson,et al.  Vision: Getting to grips with the Ebbinghaus illusion , 2001, Current Biology.

[23]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The Effect of Pictorial Illusion on Prehension and Perception , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Vision and Action: The Control of Grasping , 1990 .

[25]  S. Coren,et al.  The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  Raymond H. Cuijpers,et al.  Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  Peter Dixon,et al.  Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: Support for a planning/control model of action , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  S. Coren,et al.  A comparison of five methods of illusion measurement , 1972 .

[29]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Action beyond our grasp , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[31]  Nicola Bruno,et al.  When does action resist visual illusions? , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  David A. Westwood,et al.  Pantomimed actions may be controlled by the ventral visual stream , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[33]  Scott Glover,et al.  Visual illusions affect planning but not control , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  J E Cutting,et al.  Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[36]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.