Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?
- 364 Downloads
Manual size estimation (participants indicate the size of an object with index finger and thumb) is often interpreted as a measure of perceptual size information in the visual system, in contrast to size information used by the motor system in visually guided grasping. Because manual estimation is a relatively new measure, I compared it to a more traditional perceptual measure (method of adjustment). Manual estimation showed larger effects of the Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion than the traditional perceptual measure. This inconsistency can be resolved by taking into account that manual estimation is also unusually responsive to a physical variation of size. If we correct for the effect of physical size, manual estimation and the traditional perceptual measure show similar illusion effects. Most interestingly, the corrected illusion effects are also similar to the illusion effects found in grasping. This suggests that the same neuronal signals which generate the illusion in the traditional perceptual measure are also responsible for the effects of the illusion on manual estimation and on grasping.
KeywordsMotor control Visual pathways Illusions Prehension Human
I wish to thank Anne-Marie Brouwer for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This work was supported by grant FA 119/15-3 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by a grant from the Max Planck Society.
- Bruno N (2001) When does action resist visual illusions? Trends Cognit Sci 5(9):379–382Google Scholar
- Carey DP (2001) Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends Cognit Sci 5(3):109–113Google Scholar
- Coren S, Girgus JS (1972) A comparison of five methods of illusion measurement. Behav Res Methods Instrument 4(5):240–244Google Scholar
- Fieller EC (1932) The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 24(3/4):428–440Google Scholar
- Fieller EC (1954) Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc B 16(2):175–185Google Scholar
- Franz VH (2003) Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping? Spatial Vision 16(3–4):1–13Google Scholar
- Jeannerod M, Decety J (1990) The accuracy of visuomotor transformation. An investigation into the mechanisms of visual recognition of objects In: Goodale M (ed) Vision and action. The control of grasping. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 33–45Google Scholar
- Milgram P (1987) A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 19(5):449–456Google Scholar
- Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Otto de Haart GE, Carey DP, Milne AB (1999) More thoughts on perceiving and grasping the Müller–Lyer illusion. Neuropsychologia 37:1437–1444Google Scholar
- 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 127:95–101Google Scholar