Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 201, Issue 4, pp 863–873 | Cite as

Integration of haptic and visual size cues in perception and action revealed through cross-modal conflict

  • Charles E. PettypieceEmail author
  • Melvyn A. Goodale
  • Jody C. Culham
Research Article

Abstract

We investigated the contribution of haptic and visual information about object size to both perception and action. Kinematics of the right hand were measured while participants performed grasping actions or manual estimations under the guidance of haptic information from the left hand, binocular visual information, or both haptics and vision. The greatest uncertainty was observed with haptic information alone. Moreover, when visual and haptic sizes were congruent, performance was no different from that with vision alone. Although this gives the appearance that vision dominates, when information from the two senses was incongruent, an influence of haptic cues emerged for both tasks. Our paradigm also allowed us to demonstrate that haptic sensitivity, like visual sensitivity, scales with object size for manual estimation (consistent with Weber’s law) but not for grasping. In sum, although haptics represents a less certain source of information, haptic processing follows similar principles to vision and its contribution to perception and action becomes evident only when cross-modal information is incongruent.

Keywords

Vision Haptics Grasping Manual estimation Multisensory integration Weber’s law Kinematics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant to Dr. Jody Culham (#249877-2006 RGPIN).

References

  1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JFX, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5:679–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amedi A, Malach R, Hendler T, Peled S, Zohary E (2001) Visuo-haptic object-related activation in the ventral visual pathway. Nat Neurosci 4(3):324–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chieffi S, Gentilucci M (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94:471–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Coats R, Bingham GP, Mon-Williams M (2008) Calibrating grasp size and reach distance: interactions reveal integral organization of reaching-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 189:211–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ganel T, Chajut E, Algom D (2008) Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Curr Biol 18(14):R599–R601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gentilucci M, Daprati E, Toni I, Chieffi S, Saetti MC (1995) Unconscious updating of grasp motor program. Exp Brain Res 105:291–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gentilucci M, Daprati E, Gangitano M (1998) Haptic information differentially interferes with visual analysis in reaching-grasping control and in perceptual processes. Neuroreport 9:887–891CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, Carey DP (1991) A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature 349(6305):154–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grefkes C, Weiss PH, Zilles K, Fink GR (2002) Crossmodal processing of object features in human anterior intraparietal cortex: an fMRI study implies equivalencies between humans and monkeys. Neuron 35(1):173–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (1998) The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. J Cogn Neurosci 10(1):122–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):177–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilbig HB, Ernst MO (2007) Optimal integration of shape information from vision and touch. Exp Brain Res 179:595–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu Y, Goodale MA (2000) Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics. J Cogn Neurosci 12(5):856–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kritikos A, Beresford M, Castiello U (2002) Tactile interference in visually guided reach-to-grasp movements. Exp Brain Res 144:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Loftus A, Servos P, Goodale MA, Mendarozqueta N, Mon-Williams M (2004) When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance. Exp Brain Res 158:317–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pettypiece CE, Culham JC, Goodale MA (2009) Differential effects of delay upon visually and haptically guided grasping and perceptual judgements. Exp Brain Res 195:473–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between two senses. Science 143:594–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Teghtsoonian R, Teghtsoonian M (1970) Two varieties of perceived length. Percept Psychophys 8(6):389–392Google Scholar
  21. Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spat Vis 16(3–4):243–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Westwood DA, Heath M, Roy EA (2001) The accuracy of reaching movements in brief delay conditions. Can J Exp Psychol 55(4):304–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wing AM, Turton A, Fraser C (1986) Grasp size and accuracy of approach in reaching. J Mot Behav 3:245–260Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles E. Pettypiece
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melvyn A. Goodale
    • 1
  • Jody C. Culham
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations