The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on the planning and control of manual aiming movements.

Two experiments used Müller-Lyer stimuli to test the predictions of the planning-control model (S. Glover, 2002) for aiming movements. In Experiment 1, participants aimed to stimuli that either remained the same or changed upon movement initiation. Experiment 2 was identical except that the duration of visual feedback for online control was manipulated. The authors found that the figures visible during movement planning and online control had additive effects on endpoint bias, even when participants had ample time to use visual feedback to modify their movements (Experiment 2). These findings are problematic not only for the planning-control model but also for A. D. Milner and M. A. Goodale's (1995) two visual system explanation of illusory bias. Although our results are consistent with the idea that a single representation is used for perception, movement planning, and online control (e.g., V. H. Franz, 2001), other work from our laboratory and elsewhere suggests that the manner in which space is coded depends on constraints associated with the specific task, such as the visual cues available to the performer.

[1]  Anne-Marie Brouwer,et al.  Using the same information for planning and control is compatible with the dynamic illusion effect , 2004 .

[2]  D Elliott,et al.  Optimizing the use of Vision in Manual Aiming: The Role of Practice , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[3]  James L. Lyons,et al.  Optimal Control Strategies Under Different Feedback Schedules: Kinematic Evidence , 2002, Journal of motor behavior.

[4]  D. Elliott,et al.  The Utilization of Visual Feedback Information during Rapid Pointing Movements , 1985, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[5]  M. Goodale,et al.  A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  M. Goodale,et al.  An evolving view of duplex vision: separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action , 2004, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[7]  S. Glover,et al.  Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  Lorraine G. Kisselburgh,et al.  Rapid visual feedback processing in single-aiming movements. , 1983, Journal of motor behavior.

[9]  C. A. Mace.  THE INFLUENCE OF INDIRECT INCENTIVES UPON THE ACCURACY OF SKILLED MOVEMENTS1 , 1931 .

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

[11]  P. Donkelaar.  Pointing movements are affected by size-contrast illusions , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  D. Elliott,et al.  Visual regulation of manual aiming , 1993 .

[13]  D. Elliott,et al.  The Müller–Lyer illusion as a perturbation to the saccadic system , 1999 .

[14]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  D. Elliott,et al.  The role of target information on manual-aiming bias , 1995, Psychological Research.

[16]  Steve Hansen,et al.  The Ebbinghaus illusion affects on-line movement control , 2004, Neuroscience Letters.

[17]  D Elliott,et al.  Eye-hand coordination in goal-directed aiming. , 2001, Human movement science.

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

[19]  Jeroen B. J. Smeets,et al.  Curved movement paths and the Hering illusion: Positions or directions? , 2004 .

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

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

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

[23]  H. Heuer,et al.  Task-dependent mixtures of coordinate systems in visuomotor transformations , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  Luc Tremblay,et al.  Learning to Optimize Speed, Accuracy, and Energy Expenditure: A Framework for Understanding Speed-Accuracy Relations in Goal-Directed Aiming , 2004, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[26]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  L Proteau,et al.  Visual Perception Modifies Goal-directed Movement Control: Supporting Evidence from a Visual Perturbation Paradigm , 1997, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[29]  Leslie G. Ungerleider.  Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[30]  Luc Tremblay,et al.  The Müller-Lyer illusion affects the planning and control of manual aiming movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[31]  Ruud G. J. Meulenbroek,et al.  Planning Reaches by Evaluating Stored Postures. , 1995 .

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

[33]  E. Brenner,et al.  Fast Responses of the Human Hand to Changes in Target Position. , 1997, Journal of motor behavior.

[34]  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.

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

[36]  G. J. Laabs.  Retention characteristics of different reproduction cues in motor short-term memory. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[37]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements , 1991, Experimental Brain Research.

[38]  S. Chieffi,et al.  Visual illusion and action , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

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

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

[41]  Digby Elliott,et al.  Visual context can influence on-line control , 2004 .

[42]  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.

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

[44]  R. Mansfield,et al.  Analysis of visual behavior , 1982 .

[45]  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.

[46]  Paul van Donkelaar,et al.  Dorsal and ventral visual stream contributions to perception-action interactions during pointing , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[48]  Digby Elliott,et al.  Perception-action and the Müller-Lyer illusion: amplitude or endpoint bias? , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[49]  Peter Dixon,et al.  Motor adaptation to an optical illusion , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[50]  W. Helsen,et al.  A century later: Woodworth's (1899) two-component model of goal-directed aiming. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.