Abstract
When participants reach out to pick up a real 3-D object, their grip aperture reflects the size of the object well before contact is made. At the same time, the classical psychophysical laws and principles of relative size and shape that govern visual perception do not appear to intrude into the control of such movements, which are instead tuned only to the relevant dimension for grasping. In contrast, accumulating evidence suggests that grasps directed at flat 2D objects are not immune to perceptual effects. Thus, in 2D but not 3D grasping, the aperture of the fingers has been shown to be affected by relative and contextual information about the size and shape of the target object. A notable example of this dissociation comes from studies of Garner interference, which signals holistic processing of shape. Previous research has shown that 3D grasping shows no evidence for Garner interference but 2D grasping does (Freud & Ganel, 2015). In a recent study published in this journal (Löhr-Limpens et al., 2019), participants were presented with 2D objects in a Garner paradigm. The pattern of results closely replicated the previously published results with 2D grasping. Unfortunately, the authors, who appear to be unaware the potential differences between 2D and 3D grasping, used their findings to draw an overgeneralized and unwarranted conclusion about the relation between 3D grasping and perception. In this short methodological commentary, we discuss current literature on aperture shaping during 2D grasping and suggest that researchers should play close attention to the nature of the target stimuli they use before drawing conclusions about visual processing for perception and action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Afgin, O., Sagi, N., Nisky, I., Ganel, T., & Berman, S. (2017). Visuomotor resolution in telerobotic grasping with transmission delays. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00054.
Algom, D., & Fitousi, D. (2016). Half a century of research on Garner interference and the separability–integrality distinction. Psychologial Bulletin, 142(12), 1352–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000072.
Ayala, N., Binsted, G., & Heath, M. (2018). Hand anthropometry and the limits of aperture separation determine the utility of Weber’s law in grasping and manual estimation. Experimental Brain Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5311-6.
Bruno, N., Uccelli, S., Viviani, E., & de’Sperati, C. (2016). Both vision-for-perception and vision-for-action follow Weber’s law at small object sizes, but violate it at larger sizes. Neuropsychologia, 91, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.022.
Christiansen, J. H., Christensen, J., Grünbaum, T., & Kyllingsbæk, S. (2014). A common representation of spatial features drives action and perception: Grasping and judging object features within trials. PLoS One, 9(5), e94744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094744.
Davarpanah Jazi, S., & Heath, M. (2016). Pantomime-grasping: Advance knowledge of haptic feedback availability supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00197.
Davarpanah Jazi, S., Hosang, S., & Heath, M. (2015a). Memory delay and haptic feedback influence the dissociation of tactile cues for perception and action. Neuropsychologia, 71, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.018.
Davarpanah Jazi, S., Yau, M., Westwood, D. A., & Heath, M. (2015b). Pantomime-grasping: The ‘return’ of haptic feedback supports the absolute specification of object size. Experimental Brain Research, 233(7), 2029–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4274-0.
Eloka, O., Feuerhake, F., Janczyk, M., & Franz, V. H. (2014). Garner-interference in left-handed awkward grasping. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0585-1.
Freud, E., & Ganel, T. (2015). Visual control of action directed toward two-dimensional objects relies on holistic processing of object shape. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1377–1382. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0803-x.
Freud, E., Macdonald, S. N., Chen, J., Quinlan, D. J., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2018). Getting a grip on reality: Grasping movements directed to real objects and images rely on dissociable neural representations. Cortex, 98, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.02.020.
Ganel, T. (2015). Weber’s law in grasping. Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.8.18.
Ganel, T., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2008a). Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology, 18(14), R599–R601.
Ganel, T., Chajut, E., Tanzer, M., & Algom, D. (2008b). Response: When does grasping escape Weber’s law? Current Biology, 18(23), R1090–R1091.
Ganel, T., Freud, E., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2012). Accurate visuomotor control below the perceptual threshold of size discrimination. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036253.
Ganel, T., Freud, E., & Meiran, N. (2014). Action is immune to the effects of Weber’s law throughout the entire grasping trajectory. Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.7.11.
Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. (2003). Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature, 426(6967), 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02156.
Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2014). Variability-based Garner interference for perceptual estimations but not for grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 232(6), 1751–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3867-3.
Ganel, T., Namdar, G., & Mirsky, A. (2017). Bimanual grasping does not adhere to Weber’s law. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6467. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06799-4.
Gescheider, G. A. (1985). Psychophysics: Method, theory, and application (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Glover, S. R., & Dixon, P. (2001). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.560.
Gomez, M. A., Skiba, R. M., & Snow, J. C. (2018). Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science, 29(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617730599.
Goodale, M. A. (2011). Transforming vision into action. Vision Research, 51(13), 1567–1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.027.
Goodale, M. A. (2014). How (and why) the visual control of action differs from visual perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1785), 20140337. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0337.
Goodale, M. A., & Ganel, T. (2015). Different modes of visual organization for perception and for action. In J. Wagemans (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.
Goodale, M. A., Westwood, D. A., & Milner, A. D. (2004). Two distinct modes of control for object-directed action. Progress in Brain Research, 144, 131–144.
Heath, M., Holmes, S. A., Mulla, A., & Binsted, G. (2012). Grasping time does not influence the early adherence of aperture shaping to Weber’s law. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00332.
Heath, M., & Manzone, J. (2017). Manual estimations of functionally graspable target objects adhere to Weber’s law. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 1701–1707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-4913-8.
Heath, M., Manzone, J., Khan, M., & Davarpanah Jazi, S. (2017). Vision for action and perception elicit dissociable adherence to Weber’s law across a range of ‘graspable’ target objects. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 3003–3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5025-1.
Heath, M., Mulla, A., Holmes, S. A., & Smuskowitz, L. R. (2011). The visual coding of grip aperture shows an early but not late adherence to Weber’s law. Neuroscince Letters, 490(3), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2010.12.051.
Hesse, C., & Schenk, T. (2013). Findings from the Garner-paradigm do not support the “how” versus “what” distinction in the visual brain. Behavioral Brain Research, 239, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.11.007.
Holmes, S. A., & Heath, M. (2013). Goal-directed grasping: The dimensional properties of an object influence the nature of the visual information mediating aperture shaping. Brain and Cognition, 82(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.02.005.
Holmes, S. A., Lohmus, J., McKinnon, S., Mulla, A., & Heath, M. (2013). Distinct visual cues mediate aperture shaping for grasping and pantomime-grasping tasks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(5), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2013.818930.
Holmes, S. A., Mulla, A., Binsted, G., & Heath, M. (2011). Visually and memory-guided grasping: Aperture shaping exhibits a time-dependent scaling to Weber’s law. Vision Research, 51(17), 1941–1948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.07.005.
Hosang, S., Chan, J., Davarpanah Jazi, S., & Heath, M. (2016). Grasping a 2D object: Terminal haptic feedback supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration. Experimental Brain Research, 234(4), 945–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4521-4.
Jakobson, L. S., & Goodale, M. A. (1991). Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: A kinematic analysis of human prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 86, 199–208.
Janczyk, M., Franz, V. H., & Kunde, W. (2010). Grasping for parsimony: Do some motor actions escape dorsal processing? Neuropsychologia, 48, 3405–3415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.034.
Jeannerod, M. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(3), 235–254.
Jeannerod, M. (1986). The formation of finger grip during prehension. A cortically mediated visuomotor pattern. Behavioral Brain Research, 19, 99–116.
Kunde, W., Landgraf, F., Paelecke, M., & Kiesel, A. (2007). Dorsal and ventral processing under dual-task conditions. Psychological Science, 18(2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01855.x.
Kwok, R. M., & Braddick, O. J. (2003). When does the Titchener Circles illusion exert an effect on grasping? Two- and three-dimensional targets. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 932–940.
Löhr-Limpens, M., Göhringer, F., Schenk, T., & Hesse, C. (2019). Grasping and perception are both affected by irrelevant information and secondary tasks: New evidence from the Garner paradigm. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01151-z.
Macdonald, S. N., & Culham, J. C. (2015). Do human brain areas involved in visuomotor actions show a preference for real tools over visually similar non-tools? Neuropsychologia, 77, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.004.
Marini, F., Breeding, K. A., & Snow, J. C. (2019). Distinct visuo-motor brain dynamics for real-world objects versus planar images. Neuroimage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.026.
Monaco, S., Chen, Y., Medendorp, W. P., Crawford, J. D., Fiehler, K., & Henriques, D. Y. (2014). Functional magnetic resonance imaging adaptation reveals the cortical networks for processing grasp-relevant object properties. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1540–1554. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht006.
Ozana, A., Berman, S., & Ganel, T. (2018). Grasping trajectories in a virtual environment adhere to Weber’s law. Experimental Brain Research, 236(6), 1775–1787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5265-8.
Ozana, A., & Ganel, T. (2017). Weber’s law in 2D and 3D grasping. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0913-3.
Ozana, A., & Ganel, T. (2018). Dissociable effects of irrelevant context on 2D and 3D grasping. Attention Perception, and Psychophysics, 80, 564–575. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1443-1.
Ozana, A., & Ganel, T. (2019). Obeying the law: Speed-precision tradeoffs and the adherence to Weber’s law in 2D grasping. Experimental Brain Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05572-5.
Ozana, A., Namdar, G., & Ganel, T. (2019). Active visuomotor interactions with virtual objects on touch screens adhere to Weber’s law. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01210-5.
Pettypiece, C. E., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2010). Integration of haptic and visual size cues in perception and action revealed through cross-modal conflict. Experimental Brain Research, 201, 863–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2101-1.
Rinsma, T., van der Kamp, J., Dicks, M., & Cañal-Bruland, R. (2017). Nothing magical: Pantomimed grasping is controlled by the ventral system. Experimental Brain Research, 235(6), 1823–1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4868-1.
Snow, J. C., Pettypiece, C. E., McAdam, T. D., McLean, A. D., Stroman, P. W., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2011). Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: Repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Scientific Reports, 1, 130. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00130.
Snow, J. C., Skiba, R. M., Coleman, T. L., & Berryhill, M. E. (2014). Real-world objects are more memorable than photographs of objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 837. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00837.
Squires, S. D., Macdonald, S. N., Culham, J. C., & Snow, J. C. (2016). Priming tool actions: Are real objects more effective primes than pictures? Experimental Brain Research, 234, 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4518-z.
Westwood, D. A., Chapman, C. D., & Roy, E. A. (2000). Pantomimed actions may be controlled by the ventral visual stream. Experimental Brain Research, 130(4), 545–548.
Whitwell, R. L., Ganel, T., Byrne, C. M., & Goodale, M. A. (2015). Real-time vision, tactile cues, and visual form agnosia: Removing haptic feedback from a “natural” grasping task induces pantomime-like grasps. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00216.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by an Israel Science Foundation (ISF) Grant 274/15 to Tzvi Ganel and to Daniel Algom.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Tzvi Ganel declares that he has no conflict of interest. Aviad Ozana declares that he has no conflict of interest. Melvyn A. Goodale declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ganel, T., Ozana, A. & Goodale, M.A. When perception intrudes on 2D grasping: evidence from Garner interference. Psychological Research 84, 2138–2143 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01216-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01216-z