Top

Gepubliceerd in:

16-02-2019 | Original Article

Grasping and perception are both affected by irrelevant information and secondary tasks: new evidence from the Garner paradigm

Auteurs: Miriam Löhr-Limpens, Frederic Göhringer, Thomas Schenk, Constanze Hesse

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2020

Abstract

In their Perception–Action Model (PAM), Goodale and Milner (1992) proposed functionally independent and encapsulated processing of visual information for action and perception. In this context, they postulated that visual input for action is processed in an automatized and analytic manner, which renders visuomotor behaviour immune to perceptual interferences or multitasking costs due to sharing of cognitive resources. Here, we investigate the well-known Garner Interference effect under dual- and single-task conditions in its classic perceptual form as well as in grasping. Garner Interference arises when stimuli are classified along a relevant dimension (e.g., their length), while another irrelevant dimension (e.g., their width) has to be ignored. In the present study, participants were presented with differently sized rectangular objects and either grasped them or classified them as long or short via button presses. We found classical Garner Interference effects in perception as expressed in prolonged reaction times when variations occurred also in the irrelevant object dimension. While reaction times during grasping were not susceptible to Garner Interference, effects were observed in a number of measures that reflect grasping accuracy (i.e., poorer adjustment of grip aperture to object size, prolonged adjustment times, and increased variability of the maximum hand opening when irrelevant object dimensions were varied). In addition, multitasking costs occurred in both perception and action tasks. Thus, our findings challenge the assumption of automaticity in visuomotor behaviour as proposed by the PAM.

vorige artikel Selective attention effects on recognition: the roles of list context and perceptual difficulty

volgende artikel Unidirectional influence of vision on locomotion in multimodal spatial representations acquired from navigation

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(95)00133-3.CrossRefPubMed

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

Brown, L. E., Halpert, B. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2005). Peripheral vision for perception and action. Experimental Brain Research, 165(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2285-y.CrossRefPubMed

Culham, J. C., Danckert, S. L., Souza, J. F. X. D., Gati, J. S., Menon, R. S., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visually guided grasping produces fMRI activation in dorsal but not ventral stream brain areas. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1591-5.CrossRefPubMed

Eloka, O., Feuerhake, F., Janczyk, M., & Franz, V. H. (2015). Garner-Interference in left-handed awkward grasping. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(4), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0585-1.CrossRefPubMed

Franz, V. (2004). The optotrak toolbox. Retrieved April. 15, 2010.

Freud, E., Ganel, T., Avidan, G., & Gilaie-Dotan, S. (2016). Functional dissociation between action and perception of object shape in developmental visual object agnosia. Cortex, 76, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.12.006.CrossRefPubMed

Ganel, T., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2008). Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology, 18(14), R599–R601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.052.CrossRefPubMed

Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature, 426(6967), 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02156.CrossRefPubMed

Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2014). Variability-based Garner interference for perceptual estimations but not for grasping. Exp Brain Res, 232(6), 1751–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3867-3.CrossRefPubMed

Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90006-2.CrossRef

Garner, W. R. (1978). Selective attention to attributes and to stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.107.3.287.CrossRef

Göhringer, F., Löhr-Limpens, M., & Schenk, T. (2018). The visual guidance of action is not insulated from cognitive interference: a multitasking study on obstacle-avoidance and bisection. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.007.CrossRefPubMed

Goodale, M. A., Meenan, J. P., Bülthoff, H. H., Nicolle, D. A., Murphy, K. J., & Racicot, C. I. (1994). Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension. Current Biology, 4(7), 604–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00132-9.CrossRefPubMed

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

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/349154a0.CrossRefPubMed

Goodale, M. A., & Murphy, K. (1997). Action and perception in the visual periphery. Experimental Brain Research Series, 25, 447–462.

Hesse, C., & Deubel, H. (2011). Efficient grasping requires attentional resources. Vision Research, 51(11), 1223–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.03.014.CrossRefPubMed

Hesse, C., & Franz, V. H. (2009a). Corrective processes in grasping after perturbations of object size. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.41.3.253-273.CrossRefPubMed

Hesse, C., & Franz, V. H. (2009b). Memory mechanisms in grasping. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1532–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.012.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.11.007.CrossRefPubMed

Hesse, C., Schenk, T., & Deubel, H. (2012). Attention is needed for action control: further evidence from grasping. Vision Research, 71, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.08.014.CrossRefPubMed

Hu, Y., Eagleson, R., & Goodale, M. A. (1999). The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 126(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050720.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M., Franz, V. H., & Kunde, W. (2010). Grasping for parsimony: Do some motor actions escape dorsal processing? Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3405–3415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.034.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Does dorsal processing require central capacity? More evidence from the PRP paradigm. Experimental Brain Research, 203(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2211-9.CrossRefPubMed

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2012). Visual processing for action resists similarity of relevant and irrelevant object features. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 412–417. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0238-6.CrossRef

Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2016). Garner-interference in skilled right-handed grasping is possible. Motor Control, 20(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1123/mc.2015-0009.CrossRefPubMed

Jeannerod, M. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1984.10735319.CrossRefPubMed

Karnath, H. O., Ruter, J., Mandler, A., & Himmelbach, M. (2009). The anatomy of object recognition–visual form agnosia caused by medial occipitotemporal stroke. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(18), 5854–5862. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5192-08.2009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D., Ingling, A., Murray, R., & Broussard, C. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36(14), 1.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020.CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W., Landgraf, F., Paelecke, M., & Kiesel, A. (2007). Dorsal and ventral processing under dual-task conditions. Psychological Science 18(2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01855.x CrossRefPubMed

Liu, G., Chua, R., & Enns, J. T. (2008). Attention for perception and action: task interference for action planning, but not for online control. Experimental Brain Research, 185(4), 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1196-5.CrossRefPubMed

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

Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2006). The visual brain in action (2nd edn.). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.005.CrossRefPubMed

Pashler, H. (1989). Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 469–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90016-9.CrossRef

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.CrossRef

Sandoval Similä, S., & McIntosh, R. D. (2015). Look where you’re going! Perceptual attention constrains the online guidance of action. Vision Research, 110, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.06.002.CrossRefPubMed

Schenk, T. (2006). An allocentric rather than perceptual deficit in patient D.F. Nature Neuroscience, 9(11), 1369–1370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1784.CrossRefPubMed

Schenk, T. (2010). Visuomotor robustness is based on integration not segregation. Vision Research, 50(24), 2627–2632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.013.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3413-11.2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schenk, T., Franz, V., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

Schenk, T., & Hesse, C. (2018). Do we have distinct systems for immediate and delayed actions? A selective review on the role of visual memory in action. Cortex, 98, 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.014.CrossRefPubMed

Schenk, T., Utz, K. S., & Hesse, C. (2017). Violations of Weber’s law tell us more about methodological challenges in sensorimotor research than about the neural correlates of visual behaviour. Vision Research, 140, 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2017.05.017.CrossRefPubMed

Singhal, A., Culham, J. C., Chinellato, E., & Goodale, M. A. (2007). Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. Journal of Vision, 7(5), 5 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.5.5.CrossRefPubMed

Smeets, J. B., & Brenner, E. (1999). A new view on grasping. Motor Control, 3(3), 237–271.CrossRef

Utz, K. S., Hesse, C., Aschenneller, N., & Schenk, T. (2015). Biomechanical factors may explain why grasping violates Weber’s law. Vision Research, 111(Pt A), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.021.CrossRefPubMed

Westwood, D. A., Danckert, J., Servos, P., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Experimental Brain Research, 144(2), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-002-1068-y.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Grasping and perception are both affected by irrelevant information and secondary tasks: new evidence from the Garner paradigm
Auteurs: Miriam Löhr-Limpens
Frederic Göhringer
Thomas Schenk
Constanze Hesse
Publicatiedatum: 16-02-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01151-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2020

The relation between state and trait risk taking and problem-solving

Humans derive task expectancies from sub-second and supra-second interval durations

The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance

Influences of basic numerical abilities on graph reading performance

Socially alerted cognition evoked by a confederate’s mere presence: analysis of reaction-time distributions and delta plots

The representation and plasticity of body emotion expression