Skip to main content
Log in

Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion

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

Abstract

The goal of the present investigation was to determine the time-course by which the motor system might resolve the context-dependent effects of a visual illusion [i.e., the Müller-Lyer (ML) figure]. Specifically, we asked participants to scale their grip aperture (GA) to the perceived size of an object embedded within a ML figure in advance of closed-loop (CL) and open-loop (OL) grasping movements. As a result, premovement GA was biased in a direction consistent with the perceptual effects of the illusion. We reasoned that such a manipulation might provide a novel opportunity to determine whether the motor system is able to resolve a biased GA immediately following the onset of a response [i.e., in accord with the perception/action model (PAM); Milner and Goodale 1995, The visual brain in action, Oxford University Press], or gradually as the action unfolds [i.e., in accord with the planning/control model (PCM); Glover and Dixon 2002, Percept Psychophys 64:266–278]. It was found that biasing GA in advance of movement resulted in a reliable effect of the ML figure throughout CL and OL trials (i.e., up to 80% of grasping time). Although the present findings appear contrary to the theoretical tenets of the PAM and the PCM, it is proposed that biasing GA in advance of movement leads to offline visual processing and a feedforward mode of grasping control, thus accounting for the illusion-induced effect throughout the grasping response.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2A,B
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Experiment 2 of their work, Glover and Dixon (2002) state that analysis of closed-loop trials “...revealed evidence for a constant effect of the illusion (λ=26.9) but no clear evidence that the effect varied over time (λ=1.2)” (page 273).

References

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman B, Kirch M, Sperling A (1981) Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual functioning using induced motion. Percept Psychophys 29: 336–342

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danckert JA, Sharif N, Haffenden AM, Schiff KC, Goodale MA (2002). A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control. Exp Brain Res 144:275–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Madalena J (1987) The influence of premovement visual information on manual aiming. Q J Exp Psychol 39A:541–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott D, Heath M, Binsted G, Ricker KL, Roy EA, Chua R. (1999) Goal-directed aiming: correcting a force specification error with the right and left hands. J Mot Behav 31:309–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fecteau JH, Chua R, Franks I, Enns JT (2001) Visual awareness and the on-line modification of action. Can J Exp Psychol 55:104–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franz VH (2003) Planning versus online control: dynanmic illusion effects in grasping? Spat Vis 16:211–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover S, Dixon P (2001) Motor adaptation to an optical illusion. Exp Brain Res 137:254–258

    CAS  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 64:266–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the mean of words. Exp Brain Res 154:103–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA, Pelisson D, Prablanc C (1986) Large adjustments in visually-guided reaching do not depend on vision of the hand or perception of target displacement. Nature 320:748–750

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heath M, Westwood DA (2003) Can a visual representation support the online control of memory-dependent reaching? Evidence from a variable spatial mapping paradigm. Motor Control 7:346–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heath M, Hodges NJ, Chua R, Elliott D (1998) On-line control of rapid aiming movements: unexpected target perturbations and movement kinematics. Can J Exp Psychol 52:163–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath M, Westwood DA, Binsted G (2004) The control of memory-guided reaching movements in peripersonal space. Motor Control 8:76–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y, Goodale MA (2000) Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics. J Cogn Neurosci 12:856–868

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y, Eagleson R, Goodale MA (1999) The effect of delay on the kinematics of grasping. Exp Brain Res 126:109–116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meulenbroek RGJ, Rosenbaum DA, Jansen C, Vaughan J, Vogt S. (2001). Multijoint grasping movements: Simulated and observed effects of object location, object size, and initial aperture. Exp Brain Res 138:219–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pisella L, Grea H, Tilikete C, Vighetto A, Desmurget M, Rode G, Boisson D, Rossetti Y (2000) An ‘automatic pilot’ for the hand in human posterior parietal cortex: toward reinterpreting optic ataxia. Nat Neurosci 3:729–736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plamondon R (1995) A kinematic theory of rapid human movements. Part 1. Movement representation and generation. Biol Cybern 72:295–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saling M, Mescheriakov S, Molokanova E, Stelmach GE, Berger M (1996) Grip reorganization during wrist transport: the influence of an altered aperture. Exp Brain Res 108:493–500

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savelsbergh GJP, Whiting HTA, Bootsma RJ (1991) Grasping tau. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17:315–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Timmann D, Stelmach GE, Bloedel JR (1996) Grasping component alterations and limb transport. Exp Brain Res 108:486–492

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vishton, PM, Rea JG, Cutting JE, Nunez LN (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 25:1695–1672

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spat Vis 16:243–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood DA, Heath M, Roy EA (2000b) The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension. Exp Brain Res 134:456–463

    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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Heath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heath, M., Rival, C. & Binsted, G. Can the motor system resolve a premovement bias in grip aperture? Online analysis of grasping the Müller-Lyer illusion. Exp Brain Res 158, 378–384 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-1988-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-1988-9

Keywords

Navigation