Müller-Lyer illusion effect on a reaching movement in simultaneous presentation of visual and haptic/kinesthetic cues

This paper describes the effect of Müller-Lyer illusion on a reaching movement just after the visual and haptic/kinesthetic cues are simultaneously presented. First, a standard experiment on this visual illusion is conducted by means of the most typical way so as to make sure that participants can experience this illusion; the result shows that all the subjects are deceived by the illusion figure as in many previous results. As the next step, the subjects are asked to physically trace one of three lines-normal line and lines with feathers of an arrow-with the same length displayed on an LCD. After a few traces, the line suddenly vanishes, and then the subjects retrace the invisible line based on only their memory and somatic sensations. During this task, we measure the trajectory of fingertip from a start to the goal using a motion capture system. The result indicates that the Müller-Lyer illusion dominantly affects the reaching task although the haptic/kinesthetic cue was also given just before the task. Thus, this result implies that the visual illusion affects the motion planning, which partly supports a planning-motion model.

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

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

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

[4]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[5]  Frank Restle,et al.  Size of the Mueller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions: Theory and data , 1977 .

[6]  M. Kawato,et al.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

[7]  A. Watson,et al.  Müller–Lyer Haptic Illusion and a Confusion Theory Explanation , 1966, Nature.

[8]  Ayaka Ohtake,et al.  Verification of Haptic Illusions Using a Haptic Interface and Consideration on its Mechanism , 2006, J. Robotics Mechatronics.

[9]  Rita G. Rudel,et al.  Decrement of Visual and Haptic Müller-lyer Illusion on Repeated Trials: A Study of Crossmodal Transfer , 1963 .

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

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

[12]  T. Yabuta,et al.  Measurement of Distance Error in Reaching Movement of the Human Hand without Using Vision , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[13]  宇野 洋二,et al.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement : minimum torque-change model , 1988 .

[14]  Tsuneo Yoshikawa,et al.  Manipulability of Robotic Mechanisms , 1985 .

[15]  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.