Grasping the diagonal: controlling attention to illusory stimuli for action and perception
- PMID: 18508282
- DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.04.003
Grasping the diagonal: controlling attention to illusory stimuli for action and perception
Abstract
Since the pioneering work of [Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5(6), 679-685] visual illusions have been used to provide evidence for the functional division of labour within the visual system-one system for conscious perception and the other system for unconscious guidance of action. However, these studies were criticised for attentional mismatch between action and perception conditions and for the fact that grip size is not determined by the size of an object but also by surrounding obstacles. Stoettinger and Perner [Stoettinger, E., & Perner, J., (2006). Dissociating size representations for action and for conscious judgment: Grasping visual illusions without apparent obstacles. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 269-284] used the diagonal illusion controlling for the influence of surrounding features on grip size and bimanual grasping to rule out attentional mismatch. Unfortunately, the latter objective was not fully achieved. In the present study, attentional mismatch was avoided by using only the dominant hand for action and for indicating perceived size. Results support the division of labour: Grip aperture follows actual size independent of illusory effects, while finger-thumb span indications of perceived length are clearly influenced by the illusion.
Similar articles
-
Dissociating size representation for action and for conscious judgment: Grasping visual illusions without apparent obstacles.Conscious Cogn. 2006 Jun;15(2):269-84. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.07.004. Epub 2005 Sep 9. Conscious Cogn. 2006. PMID: 16154764
-
Visuomotor 'immunity' to perceptual illusion: a mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception-action dissociation.Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(8):1501-8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.010. Epub 2005 Dec 20. Neuropsychologia. 2006. PMID: 16364378
-
Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation.Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008 Oct-Dec;25(7-8):920-50. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008. PMID: 19378412
-
Effects of visual illusions on grasping.J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Oct;27(5):1124-44. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001. PMID: 11642699 Review.
-
When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review.Neuropsychologia. 2009 May;47(6):1421-33. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.031. Epub 2008 Nov 19. Neuropsychologia. 2009. PMID: 19059422 Review.
Cited by
-
Some Illusions Are More Inconsistent Than Others.Perception. 2019 Jul;48(7):638-641. doi: 10.1177/0301006619853147. Epub 2019 May 24. Perception. 2019. PMID: 31126210 Free PMC article.
-
Does visuomotor adaptation contribute to illusion-resistant grasping?Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Apr;25(2):827-845. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1368-7. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018. PMID: 28853037 Free PMC article.
-
Division of labour within the visual system: fact or fiction? Which kind of evidence is appropriate to clarify this debate?Exp Brain Res. 2010 Apr;202(1):79-88. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2114-9. Epub 2009 Dec 11. Exp Brain Res. 2010. PMID: 20012534
-
Why some size illusions affect grip aperture.Exp Brain Res. 2020 Apr;238(4):969-979. doi: 10.1007/s00221-020-05775-1. Epub 2020 Mar 17. Exp Brain Res. 2020. PMID: 32185404 Free PMC article.
-
Retro- and prospection for mental time travel: emergence of episodic remembering and mental rotation in 5- to 8-year old children.Conscious Cogn. 2010 Sep;19(3):802-15. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.022. Epub 2010 Jul 22. Conscious Cogn. 2010. PMID: 20650660 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources