Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 151, Issue 4, pp 471–477 | Cite as

Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

  • V. H. FranzEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Motor control Visual pathways Illusions Prehension Human 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JFX, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5(6):679–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartelt R, Darling WG (2002) Opposite effects on perception and action induced by the Ponzo illusion. Exp Brain Res 146:433–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruno N (2001) When does action resist visual illusions? Trends Cognit Sci 5(9):379–382Google Scholar
  4. Carey DP (2001) Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends Cognit Sci 5(3):109–113Google Scholar
  5. Coren S, Girgus JS (1972) A comparison of five methods of illusion measurement. Behav Res Methods Instrument 4(5):240–244Google Scholar
  6. Daprati E, Gentilucci M (1997) Grasping an illusion. Neuropsychologia 35(12):1577–1582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94(1):91–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fieller EC (1932) The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 24(3/4):428–440Google Scholar
  9. Fieller EC (1954) Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc B 16(2):175–185Google Scholar
  10. Franz VH (2001) Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends Cognit Sci 5(11):457–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franz VH (2003) Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping? Spatial Vision 16(3–4):1–13Google Scholar
  12. Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2000) Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychol Sci 11(1):20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Franz VH, Fahle M, Bülthoff HH, Gegenfurtner KR (2001) Effects of visual illusions on grasping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27(5):1124–1144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Franz VH, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2003) Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle-avoidance is not the explanation. Exp Brain Res 149:470–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern MVRA (1972) The Interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. J Exp Psychol 95(2):453–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glover S (2002) Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends Cognit Sci 6(7):288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glover S, Dixon P (2001) Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:560–572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Glover S, Dixon P (2002) Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: support for a planning/control model of action. Percept Psychophys 64(2):266–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (1998) The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. J Cognit Neurosci 10(1):122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (2000a) Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Res 40:1597–1607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (2000b) The effect of learned perceptual associations on visuomotor programming varies with kinematic demands. J Cognit Neurosci 12(6):950–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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(3):177–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Milgram P (1987) A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 19(5):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 9:97–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Otto de Haart GE, Carey DP, Milne AB (1999) More thoughts on perceiving and grasping the Müller–Lyer illusion. Neuropsychologia 37:1437–1444Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Plodowski A, Jackson SR (2001) Vision: getting to grips with the Ebbinghaus illusion. Curr Biol 11(8):306–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2001) Action beyond our grasp. Trends Cognit Sci 5(7):287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E, Grave DDJ de, Cuijpers RH (2002) Illusions in action: Consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes. Exp Brain Res 147:135–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vishton P, Rea J, Cutting J, Nunez L (1999) Comparing effects of the horizontal–vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: Relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25(6):1659–1672PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Westwood DA, Chapman CD, Roy EA (2000a) Pantomimed actions may be controlled by the ventral visual stream. Exp Brain Res 130(4):545–548PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Westwood DA, Dubrowski A, Carnahan H, Roy EA (2000b) The effect of illusory size on force production when grasping objects . Exp Brain Res 135(4):535–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Westwood DA, McEachern T, Roy EA (2001) Delayed grasping of a Müller–Lyer figure. Exp Brain Res 141:166–173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Westwood DA, Danckert J, Servos P, Goodale MA (2002) Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Exp Brain Res 144:262–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FB 06/Abt. Allgemeine PsychologieJustus-Liebig-Universität GiessenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations