Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Manual size estimation (participants indicate the size of an object with index finger and thumb) is often interpreted as a measure of perceptual size information in the visual system, in contrast to size information used by the motor system in visually guided grasping. Because manual estimation is a relatively new measure, I compared it to a more traditional perceptual measure (method of adjustment). Manual estimation showed larger effects of the Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion than the traditional perceptual measure. This inconsistency can be resolved by taking into account that manual estimation is also unusually responsive to a physical variation of size. If we correct for the effect of physical size, manual estimation and the traditional perceptual measure show similar illusion effects. Most interestingly, the corrected illusion effects are also similar to the illusion effects found in grasping. This suggests that the same neuronal signals which generate the illusion in the traditional perceptual measure are also responsible for the effects of the illusion on manual estimation and on grasping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aglioti S, DeSouza JFX, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5(6):679–685

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelt R, Darling WG (2002) Opposite effects on perception and action induced by the Ponzo illusion. Exp Brain Res 146:433–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno N (2001) When does action resist visual illusions? Trends Cognit Sci 5(9):379–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey DP (2001) Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends Cognit Sci 5(3):109–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Coren S, Girgus JS (1972) A comparison of five methods of illusion measurement. Behav Res Methods Instrument 4(5):240–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Daprati E, Gentilucci M (1997) Grasping an illusion. Neuropsychologia 35(12):1577–1582

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94(1):91–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fieller EC (1932) The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 24(3/4):428–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Fieller EC (1954) Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc B 16(2):175–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz VH (2001) Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends Cognit Sci 5(11):457–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franz VH (2003) Planning versus online control: dynamic illusion effects in grasping? Spatial Vision 16(3–4):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2000) Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychol Sci 11(1):20–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franz VH, Fahle M, Bülthoff HH, Gegenfurtner KR (2001) Effects of visual illusions on grasping. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27(5):1124–1144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franz VH, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2003) Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle-avoidance is not the explanation. Exp Brain Res 149:470–477

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern MVRA (1972) The Interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. J Exp Psychol 95(2):453–455

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover S (2002) Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends Cognit Sci 6(7):288–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover S, Dixon P (2001) Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:560–572

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover S, Dixon P (2002) Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: support for a planning/control model of action. Percept Psychophys 64(2):266–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (1998) The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. J Cognit Neurosci 10(1):122–136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (2000a) Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Res 40:1597–1607

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haffenden AM, Goodale MA (2000b) The effect of learned perceptual associations on visuomotor programming varies with kinematic demands. J Cognit Neurosci 12(6):950–964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haffenden AM, Schiff KC, Goodale MA (2001) The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Curr Biol 11(3):177–181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M, Decety J (1990) The accuracy of visuomotor transformation. An investigation into the mechanisms of visual recognition of objects In: Goodale M (ed) Vision and action. The control of grasping. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 33–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram P (1987) A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 19(5):449–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Otto de Haart GE, Carey DP, Milne AB (1999) More thoughts on perceiving and grasping the Müller–Lyer illusion. Neuropsychologia 37:1437–1444

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavani F, Boscagli I, Benvenuti F, Rabuffetti M, Farnè A (1999) Are perception and action affected differently by the Titchener circles illusion? Exp Brain Res 127:95–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Plodowski A, Jackson SR (2001) Vision: getting to grips with the Ebbinghaus illusion. Curr Biol 11(8):306–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2001) Action beyond our grasp. Trends Cognit Sci 5(7):287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets JBJ, Brenner E, Grave DDJ de, Cuijpers RH (2002) Illusions in action: Consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes. Exp Brain Res 147:135–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vishton P, Rea J, Cutting J, Nunez L (1999) Comparing effects of the horizontal–vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: Relative versus absolute, not perception versus action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25(6):1659–1672

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Chapman CD, Roy EA (2000a) Pantomimed actions may be controlled by the ventral visual stream. Exp Brain Res 130(4):545–548

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Dubrowski A, Carnahan H, Roy EA (2000b) The effect of illusory size on force production when grasping objects . Exp Brain Res 135(4):535–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, McEachern T, Roy EA (2001) Delayed grasping of a Müller–Lyer figure. Exp Brain Res 141:166–173

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Danckert J, Servos P, Goodale MA (2002) Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Exp Brain Res 144:262–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Anne-Marie Brouwer for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This work was supported by grant FA 119/15-3 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by a grant from the Max Planck Society.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FB 06/Abt. Allgemeine Psychologie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10F, 35394, Giessen, Germany

    V. H. Franz

Authors
  1. V. H. Franz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. H. Franz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franz, V.H. Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?. Exp Brain Res 151, 471–477 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1477-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1477-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation