Reaching for visual cues to depth: the brain combines depth cues differently for motor control and perception.

Vision provides a number of cues about the three-dimensional (3D) layout of objects in a scene that could be used for planning and controlling goal-directed behaviors such as pointing, grasping, and placing objects. An emerging consensus from the perceptual work is that the visual brain is a near-optimal Bayesian estimator of object properties, for example, by integrating cues in a way that accounts for differences in their reliability. We measured how the visuomotor system integrates binocular and monocular cues to 3D surface orientation to guide the placement of objects on a slanted surface. Subjects showed qualitatively similar results to those found in perceptual studies--they gave more weight to binocular cues at low slants and more weight to monocular cues like texture at high slants. We compared subjects' performance in the visuomotor task with their performance on matched perceptual tasks that required an observer to estimate the same 3D surface properties needed to control the motor behavior. The relative influence of binocular and monocular cues changed in qualitatively the same way across stimulus conditions in the two types of task; however, subjects gave significantly more weight to binocular cues for controlling hand movements than for making explicit perceptual judgments in these tasks. Thus, the brain changes how it integrates visual cues based not only on the information content of stimuli, but also on the task for which the information is used.

[1]  Robert A Jacobs,et al.  Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[2]  Simon J Watt,et al.  Binocular cues are important in controlling the grasp but not the reach in natural prehension movements , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  James M. Hillis,et al.  Slant from texture and disparity cues: optimal cue combination. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[4]  John P. Frisby,et al.  Interaction of stereo, texture and outline cues in the shape perception of three-dimensional ridges , 1993, Vision Research.

[5]  Michael S Landy,et al.  Statistical decision theory and the selection of rapid, goal-directed movements. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[6]  Andrew Blake,et al.  Shape from texture: Ideal observers and human psychophysics , 1993, Vision Research.

[7]  Michael S. Landy,et al.  Integration of stereopsis and motion shape cues , 1994, Vision Research.

[8]  S. Gepshtein,et al.  Viewing Geometry Determines How Vision and Haptics Combine in Size Perception , 2003, Current Biology.

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

[10]  F. Phillips,et al.  The Perception of Scale-Dependent and Scale-Independent Surface Structure from Binocular Disparity, Texture, and Shading , 1998, Perception.

[11]  D. Burr,et al.  The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration , 2004, Current Biology.

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

[13]  David C. Knill,et al.  Surface orientation from texture: ideal observers, generic observers and the information content of texture cues , 1998, Vision Research.

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

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

[16]  R. Mausfeld,et al.  Perception and the Physical World: Psychological and Philosophical Issues in Perception , 2002 .

[17]  D. Knill,et al.  Visuomotor sensitivity to visual information about surface orientation. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  J. Saunders,et al.  Perception of 3D surface orientation from skew symmetry , 2001, Vision Research.

[19]  M. Landy,et al.  Statistical decision theory and trade-offs in the control of motor response. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[20]  John P. Frisby,et al.  Experiments on Stereo and Texture Cue Combination in Human Vision Using Quasi-Neutral Viewing , 1992 .

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

[22]  J. Saunders,et al.  Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant? , 2003, Vision Research.

[23]  A. Yuille,et al.  Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics , 1996 .

[24]  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.

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

[26]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The role of binocular vision in prehension: a kinematic analysis , 1992, Vision Research.

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

[28]  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.

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

[30]  Simon J Watt,et al.  The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[32]  Philip N. Sabes,et al.  Multisensory Integration during Motor Planning , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  E. Johnston Systematic distortions of shape from stereopsis , 1991, Vision Research.

[34]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Optimal integration of texture and motion cues to depth , 1999, Vision Research.

[35]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  M. A. Goodale,et al.  The removal of binocular cues disrupts the calibration of grasping in patients with visual form agnosia , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[37]  J. M. Foley Binocular distance perception. , 1980, Psychological review.

[38]  J. J. Denier van der Gon,et al.  Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information , 1999 .