Getting a grip on illusions: replicating Stöttinger et al [Exp Brain Res (2010) 202:79–88] results with 3-D objects

Abstract

Studies using visual illusions to demonstrate a dissociation within the visual system can provide relevant and decisive data only if certain methodological points are taken into account. Although, our previous work (Stöttinger et al. in Exp Brain Res 202:88–97, 2010) followed these points, the task made use of only 2-D stimuli which may raise doubts concerning the nature of grasping in that experiment. We therefore replicated the study using a 3-D version of the empty space illusion. Consistent with the earlier study, that used 2-D stimuli, we found that grip aperture followed actual target size independent of illusory effects, while perceived length, as indicated by finger-thumb span, clearly was subject to the illusion. Therefore, the prior results cannot be due to the use of 2-D stimuli. Together, these two studies provide clear evidence for the perception versus action hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more details concerning apparatus and procedure see Stöttinger et al. (2010).

  2. 2.

    The mean slope of the MGA was .78 (SE = .04). It appeared at 74.93% of the grasping time. These data perfectly replicate previous findings in the literature (e.g., Jeannerod 1984; Smeets and Brenner 1999).

References

  1. Bruno N, Franz VH (2009) When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia 47:1421–1433. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.031

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR (2008) Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cogn Neuropsychol 25:920–950. doi:10.1080/02643290701862449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2000) Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychol Sci 11:20–25. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00209

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Goodale MA (2008) Action without perception in human vision. Cogn Neuropsychol 25:891–919. doi:10.1080/02643290801961984

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25. doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(03)14402-0

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (2000) Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vis Res 40:1597–1607. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00056-0

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 11:177–181. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00023-9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jacob P, Jeannerod M (2003) Ways of seeing. The scope and limits of visual cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kwok RM, Braddick OJ (2003) When does Tichener circles illusion exert an effect on grasping? Two- and three-dimensional targets. Neuropsychologica 41:932–940. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00324-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Luckiesh M (1922) Visual illusions. Their causes, characteristics and applications. Van Nostrand, New York. doi:10.1037/13023-002

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pavani F, Boscagli I, Benvenuti F, Rabuffetti M, Farne A (1999) Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion? Exp Brain Res 127:95–101. doi:10.1007/s002210050777

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schenk T, McIntosh R (2009) Do we have independent visual streams for perception and action? Cogn Neurosci 1:1–15. doi:10.1080/17588920903388950

    Google Scholar 

  14. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (1999) A new view on grasping. Mot Control 3:237–271

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stöttinger E, Perner J (2009) Consistency in exchange for inappropriately matched visual feedback? Comment on Franz and Gegenfurtner (2008) [grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation]. Cogn Neuropsychol 26:412–417. doi:10.1080/02643290903135750

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stöttinger E, Soder K, Pfusterschmied J, Wagner H (2010) Division of labour within the visual system: fact or fiction? Which kind of evidence is appropriate to clarify this debate? Exp Brain Res 202:88–97. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-2114-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) Perceptual illusion and the realtime control of action. Spat Vis 16:243–254. doi:10.1163/156856803322467518

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Westwood DA, McEachern T, Roy EA (2001) Delayed grasping of a Müller-Lyer figure. Exp Brain Res 141:166–173. doi:10.1007/s002210100865

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Westwood DA, Danckert J, Servos P, Goodale MA (2002) Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Exp Brain Res 144:262–267. doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1068-y

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Stöttinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stöttinger, E., Pfusterschmied, J., Wagner, H. et al. Getting a grip on illusions: replicating Stöttinger et al [Exp Brain Res (2010) 202:79–88] results with 3-D objects. Exp Brain Res 216, 155–157 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2912-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Visual illusion
  • Vision for perception
  • Vision for action
  • Critical methodological issues
  • 3-D stimuli