Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review.
Neuropsychologia. 2009 May; 47(6):1421-33.N

Abstract

Milner and Goodale (1995) [Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press] proposed a functional division of labor between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action. Their proposal is supported by neuropsychological, brain-imaging, and psychophysical evidence. However, it has remained controversial in the prediction that actions are not affected by visual illusions. Following up on a related review on pointing (see Bruno et al., 2008 [Bruno, N., Bernardis, P., & Gentilucci, M. (2008). Visually guided pointing, the Müller-Lyer illusion, and the functional interpretation of the dorsal-ventral split: Conclusions from 33 independent studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(3), 423-437]), here we re-analyze 18 studies on grasping objects embedded in the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion. We find that median percent effects across studies are indeed larger for perceptual than for grasping measures. However, almost all grasping effects are larger than zero and the two distributions show substantial overlap and variability. A fine-grained analysis reveals that critical roles in accounting for this variability are played by the informational basis for guiding the action, by the number of trials per condition of the experiment, and by the angle of the illusion fins. When all these factors are considered together, the data support a difference between grasping and perception only when online visual feedback is available during movement. Thus, unlike pointing, grasping studies of the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion suggest that the perceptual and motor effects of the illusion differ only because of online, feedback-driven corrections, and do not appear to support independent spatial representations for vision-for-action and vision-for-perception.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Parma, Parma, Italy. nicola.bruno@unipr.itNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19059422

Citation

Bruno, Nicola, and Volker H. Franz. "When Is Grasping Affected By the Müller-Lyer Illusion? a Quantitative Review." Neuropsychologia, vol. 47, no. 6, 2009, pp. 1421-33.
Bruno N, Franz VH. When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(6):1421-33.
Bruno, N., & Franz, V. H. (2009). When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1421-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.031
Bruno N, Franz VH. When Is Grasping Affected By the Müller-Lyer Illusion? a Quantitative Review. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(6):1421-33. PubMed PMID: 19059422.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion? A quantitative review. AU - Bruno,Nicola, AU - Franz,Volker H, Y1 - 2008/11/19/ PY - 2008/03/31/received PY - 2008/08/28/revised PY - 2008/10/22/accepted PY - 2008/12/9/pubmed PY - 2009/7/31/medline PY - 2008/12/9/entrez SP - 1421 EP - 33 JF - Neuropsychologia JO - Neuropsychologia VL - 47 IS - 6 N2 - Milner and Goodale (1995) [Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press] proposed a functional division of labor between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action. Their proposal is supported by neuropsychological, brain-imaging, and psychophysical evidence. However, it has remained controversial in the prediction that actions are not affected by visual illusions. Following up on a related review on pointing (see Bruno et al., 2008 [Bruno, N., Bernardis, P., & Gentilucci, M. (2008). Visually guided pointing, the Müller-Lyer illusion, and the functional interpretation of the dorsal-ventral split: Conclusions from 33 independent studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(3), 423-437]), here we re-analyze 18 studies on grasping objects embedded in the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion. We find that median percent effects across studies are indeed larger for perceptual than for grasping measures. However, almost all grasping effects are larger than zero and the two distributions show substantial overlap and variability. A fine-grained analysis reveals that critical roles in accounting for this variability are played by the informational basis for guiding the action, by the number of trials per condition of the experiment, and by the angle of the illusion fins. When all these factors are considered together, the data support a difference between grasping and perception only when online visual feedback is available during movement. Thus, unlike pointing, grasping studies of the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion suggest that the perceptual and motor effects of the illusion differ only because of online, feedback-driven corrections, and do not appear to support independent spatial representations for vision-for-action and vision-for-perception. SN - 1873-3514 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19059422/When_is_grasping_affected_by_the_Müller_Lyer_illusion_A_quantitative_review_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0028-3932(08)00419-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -