Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 827–845 | Cite as

Does visuomotor adaptation contribute to illusion-resistant grasping?

  • Evan Cesanek
  • Carlo Campagnoli
  • Jordan A. Taylor
  • Fulvio Domini
Article

Abstract

Do illusory distortions of perceived object size influence how wide the hand is opened during a grasping movement? Many studies on this question have reported illusion-resistant grasping, but this finding has been contradicted by other studies showing that grasping movements and perceptual judgments are equally susceptible. One largely unexplored explanation for these contradictions is that illusion effects on grasping can be reduced with repeated movements. Using a visuomotor adaptation paradigm, we investigated whether an adaptation model could predict the time course of Ponzo illusion effects on grasping. Participants performed a series of trials in which they viewed a thin wooden target, manually reported an estimate of the target’s length, then reached to grasp the target. Manual size estimates (MSEs) were clearly biased by the illusion, but maximum grip apertures (MGAs) of grasping movements were consistently accurate. Illusion-resistant MGAs were observed immediately upon presentation of the illusion, so there was no decrement in susceptibility for the adaptation model to explain. To determine whether online corrections based on visual feedback could have produced illusion-resistant MGAs, we performed an exploratory post hoc analysis of movement trajectories. Early portions of the illusion effect profile evolved as if they were biased by the illusion to the same magnitude as the perceptual responses (MSEs), but this bias was attenuated prior to the MGA. Overall, this preregistered study demonstrated that visuomotor adaptation of grasping is not the primary source of illusion resistance in closed-loop grasping.

Keywords

Reach-to-grasp Manual size estimation Ponzo illusion Visuomotor adaptation 

References

  1. Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5(6), 679–685.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartelt, R., & Darling, W. G. (2002). Opposite effects on perception and action induced by the Ponzo illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 146(4), 433–440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham, G., Coats, R., & Mon-Williams, M. (2007). Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia, 45, 288–294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. J. (1996). Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object. Experimental Brain Research, 11, 473–476.Google Scholar
  5. Bruno, N., & Franz, V. H. (2009). When is grasping affected by the Müller-Lyer illusion?: A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1421–1433.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, S., & Sabes, P. N. (2006). Modeling sensorimotor learning with linear dynamical systems. Neural Computation, 18, 760–793.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Coren, S., & Hoenig, P. (1972). Eye movements and decrement in the Oppel-Kundt illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(2B), 224–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diedrichsen, J., White, O., Newman, D., & Lally, N. (2010). Use-dependent and error-based learning of motor behaviors. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(15), 5159–5166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dienes, Z. (2008). Understanding psychology as a science. An introduction to scientific and statistical inference. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 274–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyde, R. T. & Milner, A. D. (2002). Two illusions of perceived orientation: One fools all of the people some of the time; the other fools all of the people all of the time. Experimental Brain Research, 144(4), 518–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott, D., & Lyons, J. (1998). Optimizing the use of vision during motor skill acquisition. in J. P. Piek (Ed.), Motor behavior and human skill: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 57–72). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  14. Festinger, L., White, C. W., & Allyn, M. R. (1968). Eye movements and decrement in the Müller-Lyer illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 376–382.Google Scholar
  15. Flanagan, J. R., & Beltzner, M. A. (2000). Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion. Nature Neuroscience, 3(7), 737–741.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Flash, T., & Hogan, N. (1985). The coordination of arm movements: An experimentally confirmed mathematical model. The Journal of Neuroscience, 5(7), 1688–1703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Franz, V. H. (2003). Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception? Experimental Brain Research, 151(4), 471–477.Google Scholar
  18. Franz, V. H. (2007). Ratios: A short guide to confidence limits and proper use. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.2024v1.pdf
  19. Franz, V. H., Bülthoff, H. H., & Fahle, M. (2003). Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: Obstacle-avoidance is not the explanation. Experimental Brain Research, 149, 470–477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Franz, V. H., Fahle, M., Bülthoff, H. H., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2001). Effects of visual illusions on grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27(3), 1124–1144.Google Scholar
  21. Franz, V. H. & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2008). Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(7/8), 920–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franz, V. H., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Bülthoff, H. H., & Fahle, M. (2000). Grasping visual illusions: No evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychological Science, 11(1), 20–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Franz, V. H., Hesse, C., & Kollath, S. (2009). Visual illusions, delayed grasping, and memory: No shift from dorsal to ventral control. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1518–1531.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Franz, V. H., Scharnowski, F., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2005). Illusion effects on grasping are temporally constant, not dynamic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1359–1378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ganel, T., Tanzer, M., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). A double dissociation between action and perception in the context of visual illusions: Opposite effects of real and illusory size. Psychological Science, 19(3), 221–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghahramani, Z., Wolpert, D. M., & Jordan, M. I. (1996). Generalization to local remappings of the visuomotor coordinate transformation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16(21), 7085–7096.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Glover, S. & Dixon, P. (2001a). 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, 560–572.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2001b). Motor adaptation to an optical illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 137(2), 254–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2002). Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: Support for a planning/control model of action. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(2), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonzalez, C. L. R., Ganel, T., Whitwell, R. L., Morrissey, B., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Practice makes perfect, but only with the right hand: Sensitivity to perceptual illusions with awkward grasps decreases with practice in the right but not the left hand. Neuropsychologia, 46, 624–631.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Goodale, M. A., Gonzalez, C.L.R, & Kroliczak, G. (2008). Action rules: Why the visual control of reaching and grasping is not always influenced by perceptual illusions. Perception, 37, 355–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Goodale, M. A. & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Grandy, M. S. & Westwood, D. A. (2006). Opposite perceptual and sensorimotor responses to a size-weight illusion. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(6), 3887–3892.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (1998). The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 122–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (2000). Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Research, 40, 1597–1607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Haffenden, A. M., Schiff, K. C., & Goodale, M. A. (2001). The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: Nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Current Biology, 11(3), 177–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hesse, C., Franz, V. H., & Schenk, T. (2016). Pointing and anti-pointing in Müller-Lyer figures: Why illusion effects need to be scaled. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(1), 90–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackson, S. R., & Shaw, A. (2000). The Ponzo illusion affects grip-force but not grip-aperture scaling during prehension movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(1), 418–423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Jeannerod, M. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movement. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(3), 235–254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. In N. F. Mott, E. C. Bullard, & D. H. Wilkinson (Eds.), The international series of monographs on physics (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, S. G. (n.d.). The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://ab-initio.mit.edu/nlopt
  42. Judd, C. H. (1902). Practice and its effects on the perception of illusions. Psychological Review, 9, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kopiske, K. K., Bruno, N., Hesse, C., Schenk, T., & Franz, V.H. (2016). The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study. Cortex, 79, 130–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kopiske, K. K., Cesanek, E., Campagnoli, C., & Domini, F. (2017). Adaptation effects in grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion. Vision Research, 136, 21–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Krakauer, J. W., Ghez, C., & Ghilardi, M. F. (2005). Adaptation to visuomotor transformation: Consolidation, interference, and forgetting. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25(2), 473–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewis, E. O. (1908). The effect of practice on the perception of the Müller–Lyer illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 2, 294–306.Google Scholar
  47. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46, 774–785.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pavani, F., Boscagli, I., Benvenuti, F., Rabuffetti, M., & Farnè, A. (1999). Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion?. Experimental Brain Research, 127(1), 95–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Pine, Z. M., Krakauer, J. W., Gordon, J., & Ghez, C. (1996). Learning of scaling factors and reference axes for reaching movements. NeuroReport, 7, 2357–2361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Post, R. B. & Welch, R. B. (1996). Is there dissociation of perceptual and motor responses to figural illusions? Perception, 25, 569–581.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Powell, M. J. D. (1998). Direct search algorithms for optimization calculations. Acta Numerica, 7, 287–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Predebon, J. (2006). Decrement in the Müller-Lyer and Poggendorff illusions: The effects of inspection and practice. Psychological Research, 70, 384–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  54. Säfström, D., & Edin, B. B. (2008). Prediction of object contact during grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 190(3), 265–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Schenk, T. (2012). No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(6), 2013–2017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Schot, W. D., Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2010). Robust movement segmentation by combining multiple sources of information. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 187, 147–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Smeets, J. B. J., & Brenner, E. (1999). A new view on grasping. Motor Control, 3, 237–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Smeets, J. B. J., Glover, S., & Brenner, E. (2003). Modeling the time-dependent effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping. Spatial Vision, 16(3/4), 311–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Stöttinger, E., Aigner, S., Hanstein, K., & Perner, J. (2009). Grasping the diagonal: Controlling attention to illusory stimuli for action and perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 223–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Stöttinger, E., Soder, K., Pfusterschmied, J., Wagner, H., & Perner, J. (2010). Division of labour within the visual system: Fact or fiction? Which kind of evidence is appropriate to clarify this debate? Experimental Brain Research, 202, 79–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Thoroughman, K. A., & Shadmehr, R. (2000). Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature, 407, 742–747.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Verstynen, T., & Sabes, P. N. (2011). How each movement changes the next: An experimental and theoretical study of fast adaptive priors in reaching. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(27), 10050–10059.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Vishton, P. M., Rea, J. G., Cutting, J. E., & Nuñez, L. N. (1999). Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: Relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1659–1672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Voudouris, D., Smeets, J. B. J., & Brenner, E. (2013). Ultra-fast selection of grasping points. Journal of Neurophysiology, 110, 1484–1489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Whitwell, R. L., Buckingham, G., Enns, J. T., Chouinard, P. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2016). Rapid decrement in the effects of the Ponzo display dissociates action and perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1157–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whitwell, R. L., & Goodale, M. A. (2013). Grasping without vision: Time normalizing grip aperture profiles yields spurious grip scaling to target size. Neuropsychologia, 51(10), 1878–1887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evan Cesanek
    • 1
  • Carlo Campagnoli
    • 2
  • Jordan A. Taylor
    • 2
  • Fulvio Domini
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Center for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems@UniTnRoveretoItaly

Personalised recommendations