A Double Dissociation Between Action and Perception in the Context of Visual Illusions

The idea that there are two distinct cortical visual pathways, a dorsal action stream and a ventral perception stream, is supported by neuroimaging and neuropsychological evidence. Yet there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not the action system is resistant to pictorial illusions in healthy participants. In the present study, we disentangled the effects of real and illusory object size on action and perception by pitting real size against illusory size. In our task, two objects that differed slightly in length were placed within a version of the Ponzo illusion. Even though participants erroneously perceived the physically longer object as the shorter one (or vice versa), their grasping was remarkably tuned to the real size difference between the objects. These results provide the first demonstration of a double dissociation between action and perception in the context of visual illusions and together with previous findings converge on the idea that visually guided action and visual perception make use of different metrics and frames of reference.

[1]  Kenneth F. Valyear,et al.  Human parietal cortex in action , 2006, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

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

[3]  E. Brenner,et al.  10 years of illusions. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  M. Goodale,et al.  Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape , 2003, Nature.

[5]  Tzvi Ganel,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  L. Jakobson,et al.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them , 1991, Nature.

[7]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[13]  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.

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

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

[16]  Wilfried Kunde,et al.  Dorsal and Ventral Processing Under Dual-Task Conditions , 2007, Psychological science.

[17]  M. Perenin,et al.  Optic ataxia: a specific disruption in visuomotor mechanisms. I. Different aspects of the deficit in reaching for objects. , 1988, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

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

[20]  Ehud Zohary,et al.  Dissociation between Ventral and Dorsal fMRI Activation during Object and Action Recognition , 2005, Neuron.