Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 149, Issue 4, pp 470–477 | Cite as

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

  • V. H. FranzEmail author
  • H. H. Bülthoff
  • M. Fahle
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Motor control Visual pathways Illusions Prehension Human 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Martin S. Banks, Ian M. Thornton, Fiona N. Newell, and Alexander Holub for helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This work was supported by the grant FA 119/15-3 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and by the Max Planck Society.

References

  1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JFX, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand Curr Biol 5:679–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Carey DP (2001) Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends Cogn Sci 5:109–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Coren S, Enns JT (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Percep Psychophys 54:579–588Google Scholar
  5. Daprati E, Gentilucci M (1997) Grasping an illusion. Neuropsychologia 35:1577–1582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94:91–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Franz VH (2001) Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends Cogn Sci 5:457–459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Franz VH (2003) Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping? Spatial Vision (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2000) Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychol Sci 11:20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Franz VH, Fahle M, Bülthoff HH, Gegenfurtner KR (2001) Effects of visual illusions on grasping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:1124–1144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern MVRA (1972) The Interrelationship Between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf Illusions. J Exp Psychol 95:453–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Glover S (2002) Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends Cogn Sci, 6:288–292Google Scholar
  13. Glover S, Dixon P (2002) Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus Illusion in grasping: support for a planning/control model of action. Percept Psychophys 64:266–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:97–112Google Scholar
  15. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, Carey DP (1991) A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature 349:154–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (1998) The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. J Cogn Neurosci 10:122–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (2000) Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Res 40:1597–1607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haffenden AM, Schiff KC, Goodale MA (2001) The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Curr Biol 11:177–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson SR, Husain M (1997) Visual control of hand action. Trends Cogn Sci 1(:310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (eds) Attention and performance. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, pp 153–168Google Scholar
  21. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254Google Scholar
  22. Koch C, Braun J (1996) Towards the neuronal correlate of visual awareness. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6:158–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Loftus GR, Masson EJM (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonom Bull Rev 1:476–490Google Scholar
  24. Milgram P (1987) A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope. Behav Res Methods, Instrum Comput 19:449–456Google Scholar
  25. Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pavani F, Boscagli I, Benvenuti F, Rabuffetti M, Farnè A (1999) Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion? Exp Brain Res 127:95–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Plodowski A, Jackson SR (2001) Vision: getting to grips with the Ebbinghaus illusion. Curr Biol 11:R306–R308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pöppel E, Held R, Frost D (1973) Residual visual function after brain wounds involving the central visual pathway. Nature 243:295–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M (1982) Two cortical visual systems. In Ingle DJ, Goodale MA, Mansfield RJW (eds). Analysis of visual behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 549–586Google Scholar
  31. Weiskrantz L, Warrington EK, Sanders MD, Marshall J (1987) Visual capacity in hemianopic field following a restricted occipital ablation. Brain 97:709–728Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institut für Biologische KybernetikTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Human-NeurobiologieUniversität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations