When perception intrudes on 2D grasping: evidence from Garner interference
- 82 Downloads
When participants reach out to pick up a real 3-D object, their grip aperture reflects the size of the object well before contact is made. At the same time, the classical psychophysical laws and principles of relative size and shape that govern visual perception do not appear to intrude into the control of such movements, which are instead tuned only to the relevant dimension for grasping. In contrast, accumulating evidence suggests that grasps directed at flat 2D objects are not immune to perceptual effects. Thus, in 2D but not 3D grasping, the aperture of the fingers has been shown to be affected by relative and contextual information about the size and shape of the target object. A notable example of this dissociation comes from studies of Garner interference, which signals holistic processing of shape. Previous research has shown that 3D grasping shows no evidence for Garner interference but 2D grasping does (Freud & Ganel, 2015). In a recent study published in this journal (Löhr-Limpens et al., 2019), participants were presented with 2D objects in a Garner paradigm. The pattern of results closely replicated the previously published results with 2D grasping. Unfortunately, the authors, who appear to be unaware the potential differences between 2D and 3D grasping, used their findings to draw an overgeneralized and unwarranted conclusion about the relation between 3D grasping and perception. In this short methodological commentary, we discuss current literature on aperture shaping during 2D grasping and suggest that researchers should play close attention to the nature of the target stimuli they use before drawing conclusions about visual processing for perception and action.
This paper was supported by an Israel Science Foundation (ISF) Grant 274/15 to Tzvi Ganel and to Daniel Algom.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Tzvi Ganel declares that he has no conflict of interest. Aviad Ozana declares that he has no conflict of interest. Melvyn A. Goodale declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Bruno, N., Uccelli, S., Viviani, E., & de’Sperati, C. (2016). Both vision-for-perception and vision-for-action follow Weber’s law at small object sizes, but violate it at larger sizes. Neuropsychologia, 91, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davarpanah Jazi, S., Hosang, S., & Heath, M. (2015a). Memory delay and haptic feedback influence the dissociation of tactile cues for perception and action. Neuropsychologia, 71, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Freud, E., Macdonald, S. N., Chen, J., Quinlan, D. J., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2018). Getting a grip on reality: Grasping movements directed to real objects and images rely on dissociable neural representations. Cortex, 98, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.02.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gescheider, G. A. (1985). Psychophysics: Method, theory, and application (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- Glover, S. R., & Dixon, P. (2001). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.1680.Google Scholar
- Goodale, M. A., & Ganel, T. (2015). Different modes of visual organization for perception and for action. In J. Wagemans (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Janczyk, M., Franz, V. H., & Kunde, W. (2010). Grasping for parsimony: Do some motor actions escape dorsal processing? Neuropsychologia, 48, 3405–3415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Macdonald, S. N., & Culham, J. C. (2015). Do human brain areas involved in visuomotor actions show a preference for real tools over visually similar non-tools? Neuropsychologia, 77, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Monaco, S., Chen, Y., Medendorp, W. P., Crawford, J. D., Fiehler, K., & Henriques, D. Y. (2014). Functional magnetic resonance imaging adaptation reveals the cortical networks for processing grasp-relevant object properties. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1540–1554. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Snow, J. C., Pettypiece, C. E., McAdam, T. D., McLean, A. D., Stroman, P. W., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2011). Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: Repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Scientific Reports, 1, 130. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar