Shifted visual feedback of the hand affects reachability judgments in interception.

Estimating whether an object is reachable is important if one intends to interact with the object. If an object is moving, it will be reachable only within a certain time-window. In such situations, motion of the object relative to the body has to be taken into account to judge the moment at which the target becomes reachable. We know that judgments of reachability are influenced by displaced visual feedback about the position of the hand when objects are static. Here we examine whether displaced feedback of the hand also influences reachability judgments when reachability is temporally constrained because the object is moving. The task for the subjects was to intercept a virtual cube with their unseen index finger as soon as the cube was considered to be reachable. Subjects received visual feedback about the position of their index finger, but this feedback was shifted in depth by 5 cm, either away from or closer to their body. The region that was judged to be reachable was larger when feedback of the hand was shifted away from the body than when the feedback was shifted closer to the body. This effect was correlated with the spatial error committed at the interception point. We conclude that all judgments about the surrounding space are adjusted in relation to the shifted visual feedback of the hand.

Judgments of reachability are independent of visuomotor adaptation.

The furthest distance that is judged to be reachable can change after participants have used a tool or if they are led to misjudge the position of their hand. Here we investigated how judged reachability changed when visual feedback about the hand was shifted. We hoped to distinguish between various ways in which visuomotor adaptation could influence judged reachability. Participants had to judge whether they could reach a virtual cube without actually doing so. They indicated whether they could reach this virtual cube by moving their hand. During these hand movements, visual feedback about the position of the hand was shifted in depth, either away from or toward the participant. Participants always adapted to the shifted feedback. In a session in which the hand movements in the presence of visual feedback were mainly in depth, perceived reachability shifted in accordance with the feedback (more distant cubes were judged to be reachable when feedback was shifted further away). In a second session in which the hand movements in the presence of visual feedback were mainly sideways, for some participants perceived reachability shifted in the opposite direction than we expected. The shift in perceived reachability was not correlated with the adaptation to the shift in visual feedback. We conclude that reachability judgments are not directly related to visuomotor adaptation.

Misjudging where you felt a light switch in a dark room.

Previous research has shown that subjects systematically misperceive the location of visual and haptic stimuli presented briefly around the time of a movement of the sensory organ (eye or hand movements) due to errors in the combination of visual or tactile information with proprioception. These briefly presented stimuli (a flash or a tap on the finger) are quite different from what one encounters in daily life. In this study, we tested whether subjects also mislocalize real (static) objects that are felt briefly while moving ones hand across them, like when searching for a light switch in the dark. We found that subjects systematically mislocalized a real bar in a similar manner as has been shown with artificial haptic stimuli. This demonstrates that movement-related mislocalization is a real world property of human perception.

Using a stick does not necessarily alter judged distances or reachability.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that participants judge an object to be closer after a stick has been used to touch it than after touching it with the hand. In this study we try to find out why this is so. METHODOLOGY: We showed six participants a cylindrical object on a table. On separate trials (randomly intermixed) participants either estimated verbally how far the object is from their body or they touched a remembered location. Touching was done either with the hand or with a stick (in separate blocks). In three different sessions, participants touched either the object location or the location halfway to the object location. Verbal judgments were given either in centimeters or in terms of whether the object would be reachable with the hand. No differences in verbal distance judgments or touching responses were found between the blocks in which the stick or the hand was used. CONCLUSION: Instead of finding out why the judged distance changes when using a tool, we found that using a stick does not necessarily alter judged distances or judgments about the reachability of objects.

A metanalysis of the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccadic eye movements: no general support for a dissociation of perception and oculomotor action.

Milner and Goodale's (1995) proposal of a functional division of labor between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action is supported by neuropsychological, brain-imaging, and psychophysical evidence. However, there remains considerable debate as to whether, as their proposal would predict, the effect of contextual illusions on vision-for-action can be dissociated from that on vision-for-perception. Meta-analytical efforts examining the effect of the Müller-Lyer (ML) illusion on pointing (Bruno, Bernardis, & Gentilucci, 2008) or grasping (Bruno & Franz, 2009) have been conducted to resolve the controversy. To complement this work, here we re-analyzed 17 papers detailing 21 independent studies investigating primary saccades to target locations that were perceptually biased by the ML illusion. Using a corrected percent illusion effect measure to compare across different studies and across experimental conditions within studies, we find that saccadic eye movements are always strongly biased by the illusion although the size of this effect can be reduced by factors such as display duration and between-trials variability in display length and orientation, possibly due to a process of saccadic adaptation. In contrast to some reports, we find no general support for differences between voluntary and reflexive saccades or between saccades performed in conjunction with a pointing movement and saccades performed without pointing. We conclude that studies on the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion do not provide evidence for a functional dissociation between primary saccades and perception.

The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades is modulated by spatial predictability and saccadic latency.

Studies investigating the effect of visual illusions on saccadic eye movements have provided a wide variety of results. In this study, we test three factors that might explain this variability: the spatial predictability of the stimulus, the duration of the stimulus and the latency of the saccades. Participants made a saccade from one end of a Müller-Lyer figure to the other end. By changing the spatial predictability of the stimulus, we find that the illusion has a clear effect on saccades (16%) when the stimulus is at a highly predictable location. Even stronger effects of the illusion are found when the stimulus location becomes more unpredictable (19-23%). Conversely, manipulating the duration of the stimulus fails to reveal a clear difference in illusion effect. Finally, by computing the illusion effect for different saccadic latencies, we find a maximum illusion effect (about 30%) for very short latencies, which decreases by 7% with every 100 ms latency increase. We conclude that spatial predictability of the stimulus and saccadic latency influences the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades.

The Brentano illusion influences goal-directed movements of the left and right hand to the same extent.

Recently, Gonzalez et al. (J Neurophys 95:3496-3501, 2006) reported that movements with the left hand are more susceptible to visual size illusions than are those with the right hand. We hypothesized that this might be because proprioceptive information about the position of the left hand is less precise. If so, the difference between the hands should become clearer when vision of the hand is removed so that subjects can only rely on proprioception to locate their hand. We tested whether this was so by letting right-handed subjects make open-loop pointing movements within an illusory context with and without vision of their hand. On average, the illusion influenced the left and the right hand to the same extent, irrespective of the visibility of the hand. There were some systematic differences between the hands within certain regions of space, but these were not consistent across subjects. We conclude that there is no fundamental difference between the hands in susceptibility to the Brentano illusion.

Planning movements well in advance.

It has been suggested that the metrics of grasping movements directed to visible objects are controlled in real time and are therefore unaffected by previous experience. We tested whether the properties of a visually presented distractor object influence the kinematics of a subsequent grasping movement performed under full vision. After viewing an elliptical distractor object in one of two different orientations participants grasped a target object, which was either the same object with the same orientation or a circular object without obvious orientation. When grasping the circular target, grip orientation was influenced by the orientation of the distractor. Moreover, as in classical visuomotor priming, grasping movements were initiated faster when distractor and target were identical. Results provide evidence that planning of visually guided grasping movements is influenced by prior perceptual experience, challenging the notion that metric aspects of grasping are controlled exclusively on the basis of real-time information.

Fixation locations when grasping partly occluded objects.

When grasping an object, subjects tend to look at the contact positions of the digits (A. M. Brouwer, V. H. Franz, D. Kerzel, & K. R. Gegenfurtner, 2005; R. S. Johansson, G. Westling, A. Bäckström, & J. R. Flanagan, 2001). However, these contact positions are not always visible due to occlusion. Subjects might look at occluded parts to determine the location of the contact positions based on extrapolated information. On the other hand, subjects might avoid looking at occluded parts since no object information can be gathered there. To find out where subjects fixate when grasping occluded objects, we let them grasp flat shapes with the index finger and thumb at predefined contact positions. Either the contact position of the thumb or the finger or both was occluded. In a control condition, a part of the object that does not involve the contact positions was occluded. The results showed that subjects did look at occluded object parts, suggesting that they used extrapolated object information for grasping. Additionally, they preferred to look in the direction of the index finger. When the contact position of the index finger was occluded, this tendency was inhibited. Thus, an occluder does not prevent fixations on occluded object parts, but it does affect fixation locations especially in conditions where the preferred fixation location is occluded.

Grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion: not a change in perceived length.

Peak grip aperture has often been used to quantify the influence of illusions on judgments of size for action. However, a larger peak grip aperture need not mean that the object looks larger. It could also mean that it was grasped more carefully. These two possibilities can be distinguished on the basis of the velocity of grip closure just before contact. We let people grasp a bar that was placed on the shaft of a Müller-Lyer figure. The Müller-Lyer figure influenced the peak grip aperture. It did not influence the velocity of grip closure in the way that one would expect if size were mis-perceived. Thus there is no reason to assume that the perceived size guides the way that we reach and grasp an object.

Sensory integration does not lead to sensory calibration.

One generally has the impression that one feels one's hand at the same location as one sees it. However, because our brain deals with possibly conflicting visual and proprioceptive information about hand position by combining it into an optimal estimate of the hand's location, mutual calibration is not necessary to achieve such a coherent percept. Does sensory integration nevertheless entail sensory calibration? We asked subjects to move their hand between visual targets. Blocks of trials without any visual feedback about their hand's position were alternated with blocks with veridical visual feedback. Whenever vision was removed, individual subjects' hands slowly drifted toward the same position to which they had drifted on previous blocks without visual feedback. The time course of the observed drift depended in a predictable manner (assuming optimal sensory combination) on the variable errors in the blocks with and without visual feedback. We conclude that the optimal use of unaligned sensory information, rather than changes within either of the senses or an accumulation of execution errors, is the cause of the frequently observed movement drift. The conclusion that seeing one's hand does not lead to an alignment between vision and proprioception has important consequences for the interpretation of previous work on visuomotor adaptation.

The influence of the Brentano illusion on eye and hand movements.

When making an eye movement and a hand movement toward a visual target, the movements could be guided by visual judgments of direction and distance (or length) of the required displacement (vector coding), estimates of the final position (position coding), or both. Using the same information for the eyes and the hand is efficient; however, if this information contains an error, this causes both the eye and the hand to be incorrect. In this study, we tried to find out whether saccades and pointing movements use the same source of information when eye and hand movements are performed either concurrently or separately. Four experiments have been performed using the Brentano illusion, which primarily influences judgments of length but not those of position. This illusion only influences movements if the illusory length is relevant for the task, demonstrating that vector coding is involved. Subjects made saccades, pointing movements, or both between vertices of the Brentano illusion. The illusion influenced saccades and pointing movements when these movements were performed concurrently and separately, showing that the eye and the hand use vector coding. However, depending on the task, eye and hand movements were influenced to a different extent. This favors the interpretation that the eyes and the hand use a common motor command but each with a different relative contribution of vector coding.

Why are saccades influenced by the Brentano illusion?

In the Brentano version of the Müller-Lyer illusion one part looks longer and the other looks shorter than it really is. We asked participants to make saccadic eye movements along these parts of the figure and between positions on the figure and a position outside the illusion. By showing that saccades from outside the figure are not influenced by the illusion, we demonstrate that the reason that saccades along the figure are influenced is that the incorrectly judged length is used to plan the amplitude of the saccade. This finding contradicts several current views on the use of visual information for action. We conclude that actions are influenced by visual illusions, but that such influences are only apparent if the action is guided by the attribute that is fooled by the illusion.

Effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on grasping are not only due to misjudged size.

It is not evident how the small effects of the flankers of the Ebbinghaus figure on peak grip aperture (PGA) should be interpreted. One interpretation is that the flankers influence the estimated size, which in turn influences the grasp. If this interpretation is correct, then only the size-dependent aspects of the grasping movement should depend on the spatial positions of the flankers. An alternative interpretation is that the effect on grip aperture is caused by a change in judgement of the required precision, in which case various aspects of the grasping movement could be influenced by the size and position of the flankers. We presented subjects with a display consisting of a central disk surrounded by four large or small flankers. The array of circular flankers could be rotated by 45 degrees . There were two tasks: to reproduce the perceived size of the central disk, and to grasp the central disk. As in other studies, the reproduced size and the PGA were both influenced by the size of the flankers. The effect on reproduced size settings was independent of the flankers' spatial position. Nevertheless, the flankers' position did influence the final grip aperture and the grip orientation at PGA and at movement offset. Because the flankers changed more than only the PGA, we conclude that the effect of the flankers on prehension cannot only be because of misjudgement of the size of the central disk.

Illusions as a tool to study the coding of pointing movements.

Pictorial illusions bias our judgments about certain visual attributes. Such illusions are therefore only expected to influence a task if these attributes are used to perform the task. When pointing to a position, different visual attributes could be used to guide the hand: direction and distance (or length) of the required displacement (vector coding) or the final position (position coding). In this study we used the Brentano illusion (an illusion of length) to determine which attributes are used in pointing. Several conditions were tested in which the visibility of the hand and the stimulus were varied. The illusion influenced movements between two points along the shaft of the figure, but not movements perpendicular to the shaft. When the hand and/or target were invisible during the movement, the influence of the illusion increased. Pointing movements under different visual conditions were based on different relative contributions of position and vector coding. The contribution of vector coding was always rather modest.

Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes.

Many authors have performed experiments in which subjects grasp objects in illusory surroundings. The vast majority of these studies report that illusions affect the maximum grip aperture less than they affect the perceived size. This observation has frequently been regarded as experimental evidence for separate visual systems for perception and action. In order to make this conclusion, one assumes that the grip aperture is based on a visual estimate of the object's size. We believe that it is not, and that this is why size illusions fail to influence grip aperture. Illusions generally do not affect all aspects of space perception in a consistent way, but mainly affect the perception of specific spatial attributes. This applies not only to object size, but also to other spatial attributes such as position, orientation, displacement, speed, and direction of motion. Whether an illusion influences the execution of a task will therefore depend on which spatial attributes are used rather than on whether the task is perceptual or motor. To evaluate whether illusions affect actions when they influence the relevant spatial attributes we review experimental results on various tasks with inconsistent spatial processing in mind. Doing so shows that many actions are susceptible to visual illusions. We argue that the frequently reported differential effect of illusions on perceptual judgements and goal-directed action is caused by failures to ensure that the same spatial attributes are used in the two tasks. Illusions only affect those aspects of a task that are based on the spatial attributes that are affected by the illusion.

Are the original Roelofs effect and the induced Roelofs effect caused by the same shift in straight ahead?

We investigated whether the original Roelofs effect and the induced Roelofs effect are caused by the same shift in perceived straight ahead. Subjects were presented with a target within a frame in complete darkness. Target and frame could both be shifted to the left or right of objective straight ahead. On separate trials, subjects gave verbal estimates about the position of either the target or the frame. The eccentricity of the frame was underestimated (the original Roelofs effect). However, the perceived position of the target did not follow this misjudgement of the eccentricity of the frame (the induced Roelofs effect was not present). Thus, it is unlikely that both effects have a common origin in misjudging egocentric straight ahead.