Fooling the Eyes: The Influence of a Sound-Induced Visual Motion Illusion on Eye Movements

The question of whether perceptual illusions influence eye movements is critical for the long-standing debate regarding the separation between action and perception. To test the role of auditory context on a visual illusion and on eye movements, we took advantage of the fact that the presence of an auditory cue can successfully modulate illusory motion perception of an otherwise static flickering object (sound-induced visual motion effect). We found that illusory motion perception modulated by an auditory context consistently affected saccadic eye movements. Specifically, the landing positions of saccades performed towards flickering static bars in the periphery were biased in the direction of illusory motion. Moreover, the magnitude of this bias was strongly correlated with the effect size of the perceptual illusion. These results show that both an audio-visual and a purely visual illusion can significantly affect visuo-motor behavior. Our findings are consistent with arguments for a tight link between perception and action in localization tasks.

[1]  Gregor Schöner,et al.  Shorter latencies for motion trajectories than for flashes in population responses of cat primary visual cortex , 2004, The Journal of physiology.

[2]  D. Burr,et al.  Auditory dominance over vision in the perception of interval duration , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  G. Recanzone.  Interactions of auditory and visual stimuli in space and time , 2009, Hearing Research.

[4]  P. Subramanian.  Active Vision: The Psychology of Looking and Seeing , 2006 .

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

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial attention-determined modifications in saccade trajectories. , 1995, Neuroreport.

[7]  David C. Burr,et al.  Separate visual representations for perception and action revealed by saccadic eye movements , 2001, Current Biology.

[8]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Grasping Weber's law , 2008, Current Biology.

[9]  M. Goodale,et al.  Converging evidence for diverging pathways: Neuropsychology and psychophysics tell the same story , 2011, Vision Research.

[10]  Y. Sugita,et al.  Sound-contingent visual motion aftereffect , 2011, BMC Neuroscience.

[11]  Nicola Bruno,et al.  Vision-for-perception and vision-for-action: Which model is compatible with the available psychophysical and neuropsychological data? , 2011, Vision Research.

[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.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand , 1995, Current Biology.

[14]  Tzvi Ganel,et al.  Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles , 2008, Current Biology.

[15]  Thomas Schenk,et al.  No Dissociation between Perception and Action in Patient DF When Haptic Feedback is Withdrawn , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  Jon Driver,et al.  Direction of Visual Apparent Motion Driven Solely by Timing of a Static Sound , 2008, Current Biology.

[17]  Yukio Iwaya,et al.  Alternation of Sound Location Induces Visual Motion Perception of a Static Object , 2009, PloS one.

[18]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Sound alters visual motion perception , 1997, Nature.

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

[20]  E Brenner,et al.  Perception and action are based on the same visual information: distinction between position and velocity. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  N. Bruno,et al.  A metanalysis of the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccadic eye movements: No general support for a dissociation of perception and oculomotor action , 2010, Vision Research.

[22]  J. Courville.  Somatotopical organization of the projection from the nucleus interpositus anterior of the cerebellum to the red nucleus. An experimental study in the cat with silver impregnation methods , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  L. Craighero,et al.  Eye Position Affects Orienting of Visuospatial Attention , 2004, Current Biology.

[24]  B. Golding,et al.  Evolution: When was life's first branch point? , 1996, Current Biology.

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

[26]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Temporal information can influence spatial localization. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[27]  Dirk Kerzel,et al.  Motion-induced illusory displacement reexamined: differences between perception and action? , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[29]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  F. Chavane,et al.  Imaging cortical correlates of illusion in early visual cortex , 2004, Nature.

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

[32]  M. Goodale,et al.  Two visual systems re-viewed , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  Visually guided pointing, the Müller-Lyer illusion, and the functional interpretation of the dorsal-ventral split: Conclusions from 33 independent studies , 2008, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.