Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle avoidance is not the explanation

The perception-versus-action hypothesis states that visual information is processed in two different streams, one for visual awareness (or perception) and one for motor performance. Previous reports that the Ebbinghaus illusion deceives perception but not grasping seemed to indicate that this dichotomy between perception and action was fundamental enough to be reflected in the overt behavior of non-neurological, healthy humans. Contrary to this view we show that the Ebbinghaus illusion affects grasping to the same extent as perception. We also show that the grasp effects cannot be accounted for by non-perceptual obstacle avoidance mechanisms as has recently been suggested. Instead, even subtle variations of the Ebbinghaus illusion affect grasping in the same way as they affect perception. Our results suggest that the same signals are responsible for the perceptual effects and for the motor effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion. This casts doubt on one line of evidence, which used to strongly favor the perception-versus-action hypothesis.

[1]  F. Ferris,et al.  New visual acuity charts for clinical research. , 1982, American journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  R. Held,et al.  Residual Visual Function after Brain Wounds involving the Central Visual Pathways in Man , 1973, Nature.

[4]  C. Trevarthen,et al.  Two mechanisms of vision in primates , 1968, Psychologische Forschung.

[5]  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.

[6]  L Weiskrantz,et al.  Visual capacity in the hemianopic field following a restricted occipital ablation. , 1974, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[8]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  Masud Husain,et al.  Visual control of hand action , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  G. Schneider.  Two visual systems: Brain mechanisms for localization and discrimination are dissociated by tectal a , 1969 .

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

[19]  Volker H Franz,et al.  Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping? , 2003, Spatial vision.

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

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

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

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

[24]  C. Koch,et al.  Towards the neuronal correlate of visual awareness , 1996, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

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

[26]  D. Hubel,et al.  Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. , 1988, Science.

[27]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

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

[29]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  Grasping an illusion , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

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

[31]  S. Jackson,et al.  Vision: Getting to grips with the Ebbinghaus illusion , 2001, Current Biology.

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

[33]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

[34]  M. Jeannerod.  Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects , 1981 .

[35]  Paul Milgram,et al.  A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope , 1987 .

[36]  S Coren,et al.  Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  S. Coren,et al.  The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.