Getting a grip on illusions: replicating Stöttinger et al [Exp Brain Res (2010) 202:79–88] results with 3-D objects

Studies using visual illusions to demonstrate a dissociation within the visual system can provide relevant and decisive data only if certain methodological points are taken into account. Although, our previous work (Stöttinger et al. in Exp Brain Res 202:88–97, 2010) followed these points, the task made use of only 2-D stimuli which may raise doubts concerning the nature of grasping in that experiment. We therefore replicated the study using a 3-D version of the empty space illusion. Consistent with the earlier study, that used 2-D stimuli, we found that grip aperture followed actual target size independent of illusory effects, while perceived length, as indicated by finger-thumb span, clearly was subject to the illusion. Therefore, the prior results cannot be due to the use of 2-D stimuli. Together, these two studies provide clear evidence for the perception versus action hypothesis.

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

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

[3]  M. Conrad,et al.  On the functional nature of the N400: Contrasting effects related to visual word recognition and contextual semantic integration , 2010, Cognitive neuroscience.

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

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

[6]  E. Brenner,et al.  A new view on grasping. , 1999, Motor control.

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

[8]  J. Perner,et al.  Consistency in exchange for inappropriately matched visual feedback? A comment on Franz and Gegenfurtner (2008) “Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation” , 2009, Cognitive neuropsychology.

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

[10]  Karl R Gegenfurtner,et al.  Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation , 2008, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[11]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Action without perception in human vision , 2008, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[12]  Volker H. Franz,et al.  When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  Oliver J Braddick,et al.  When does the Titchener Circles illusion exert an effect on grasping? Two- and three-dimensional targets , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

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

[15]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Ways of Seeing: The Scope and Limits of Visual Cognition , 2003 .

[16]  R. McIntosh,et al.  Do we have independent visual streams for perception and action? , 2010, Cognitive neuroscience.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  Josef Perner,et al.  Division of labour within the visual system: fact or fiction? Which kind of evidence is appropriate to clarify this debate? , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[20]  M. Luckiesh Visual Illusions: their Causes, Characteristics, and Applications , 1923, Nature.