Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2015 | Original Article

Garner-Interference in left-handed awkward grasping

Auteurs: Owino Eloka, Felix Feuerhake, Markus Janczyk, Volker H. Franz

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2015

Abstract

The Perception–Action Model (PAM) claims to provide a coherent interpretation of data from all areas of the visual neurosciences, most notably data from neuropsychological patients and from behavioral experiments in healthy people. Here, we tested two claims that are part of the core version of the PAM: (a) certain actions (natural, highly practiced, and right-handed) are controlled by the dorsal vision for action pathway, while other actions (awkward, unpracticed, or left-handed) are controlled by the ventral vision for perception pathway. (b) Only the dorsal pathway operates in an analytical fashion, being able to selectively focus on the task-relevant dimension of an object (Ganel and Goodale, Nature 426(6967):664–667, 2003). We show that one of these claims must be wrong: using the same test for analytical processing as Ganel and Goodale (2003), we found that even an action that should clearly be ventral (left-handed awkward grasping) shows analytical processing just as a dorsal task does (right-handed natural precision grasping). These results are at odds with the PAM and point to an inconsistency of the model.

vorige artikel Individual differences in fluid intelligence predicts inattentional blindness in a sample of older adults: a preliminary study

volgende artikel The contribution of verbalization to action

Such reasoning is also implicitly assumed in studies using visual illusions. If, for instance, participants are asked to grasp the target circle of an Ebbinghaus illusion, the PAM says that vision for action determines the size of the target circle without being influenced by the neighboring context circles. If, however, participants are asked to manually estimate the size of the target circle, the PAM states that vision for perception codes the size of the target circle relative to the neighboring context circles.

Note that in the original work this was even claimed true for left-handers.

Time to complete movement was the prominent dependent variable in the original study (Ganel & Goodale, 2003). For that reason, results for time to complete movement will always be presented first. Note that in the original study this variable was refered to as “reaction time to complete movement”.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436.PubMedCrossRef

Bruno, N. (2001). When does action resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(9), 379–382.PubMedCrossRef

Carey, D. P. (2001). Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(3), 109–113.PubMedCrossRef

Felfoldy, G. L. (1974). Repetition effects in choice reaction time to multidimensional stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 15(3), 453–459.CrossRef

Franz, V. H. (2001). Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(11), 457–459.PubMedCrossRef

Franz, V. H., & Gegenfurtner, K. (2008). Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(7), 920–950.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Franz, V. H., & Loftus, G. R. (2012). Standard errors and confidence intervals in within-subjects designs: generalizing Loftus and Masson (1994) and avoiding the biases of alternative accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 395–404.CrossRef

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.PubMed

Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature, 426(6967), 664–667.PubMedCrossRef

Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac: Erlbaum.

Garner, W. R. (1978). Selective attention to attributes and to stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(3), 287.CrossRef

Gonzalez, C. L. R., Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2006). Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(6), 3496–3501.PubMedCrossRef

Gonzalez, C. L., 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(2), 624–631.PubMedCrossRef

Goodale, M. A. (2008). Action without perception in human vision. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(7–8), 891–919.PubMedCrossRef

Goodale, M. A., Meenan, J., Bülthoff, H., Nicolle, D., Murphy, K., & Racicot, C. (1994). Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension. Current Biology, 4(7), 604–610.PubMedCrossRef

Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.PubMedCrossRef

Goodale, M. A., Milner, A. D., Jakobson, L. S., & Carey, D. P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349(6305), 154–156.PubMedCrossRef

Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24(2), 95–112.CrossRef

Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (1998). The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 122–136.PubMedCrossRef

Hesse, C., De Grave, D. D. J., Franz, V. H., Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2008). Planning movements well in advance. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(7–8), 985–995.PubMedCrossRef

Hesse, C., & Schenk, T. (2013). Findings from the Garner-paradigm do not support the ‘how’ versus ‘what’ distinction in the visual brain. Behavioural Brain Research, 239, 164–171.PubMedCrossRef

James, T. W., Culham, J., Humphrey, G. K., Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: a fMRI study. Brain, 126(11), 2463–2475.PubMedCrossRef

Janczyk, M., Franz, V. H., & Kunde, W. (2010). Grasping for parsimony: do some motor actions escape dorsal processing? Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3405–3415.PubMedCrossRef

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Does dorsal processing require central capacity? More evidence from the PRP paradigm. Experimental Brain Research, 203(1), 89–100.PubMedCrossRef

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2012). Visual processing for action resists similarity of relevant and irrelevant object features. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 412–417.CrossRef

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2014). Garner-Interference in skilled right-handed grasping is possible (submitted).

Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2013). Mice move smoothly: irrelevant object variation affects perception, but not computer mouse action. Experimental Brain Research, 231(1), 97–106.PubMedCrossRef

Jonas, M., Eloka, O., Stephan, J., & Franz, V. H. (2014). Need for space: the key distance effect depends on spatial stimulus configurations. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e91432.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Kunde, W., Landgraf, F., Paelecke, M., & Kiesel, A. (2007). Dorsal and ventral processing under dual-task conditions. Psychological Science, 18(2), 100–104.PubMedCrossRef

Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1(4), 476–490.PubMedCrossRef

Milgram, P. (1987). A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19(5), 449–456.CrossRef

Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442.PubMedCrossRef

Posner, M. I. (1964). Information reduction in the analysis of sequential tasks. Psychological Review, 71(6), 491–504.PubMedCrossRef

Schenk, T., Franz, V. H., & Bruno, N. (2011). Vision-for-perception and vision-for-action: which model is compatible with the available psychophysical and neuropsychological data? Vision Research, 51(8), 812–818.PubMedCrossRef

Smeets, J. B. J., & Brenner, E. (2006). 10 years of illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(6), 1501–1504.PubMed

Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle, M. A. Goodale, & R. J. W. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549–586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Westwood, D. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2011). Converging evidence for diverging pathways: neuropsychology and psychophysics tell the same story. Vision Research, 51(8), 804–811.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Garner-Interference in left-handed awkward grasping
Auteurs: Owino Eloka
Felix Feuerhake
Markus Janczyk
Volker H. Franz
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0585-1

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2015

Directive and incentive functions of affective action consequences: an ideomotor approach

Multiple measures of dispositional global/local bias predict attentional blink magnitude

The contribution of verbalization to action

Judgement bias in predicting the success of one’s own basketball free throws but not those of others

Individual differences in fluid intelligence predicts inattentional blindness in a sample of older adults: a preliminary study

Sensory–motor properties of past actions bias memory in a recognition task