Top

Gepubliceerd in:

04-09-2017 | Original Article

Weber’s law in 2D and 3D grasping

Auteurs: Aviad Ozana, Tzvi Ganel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2019

Abstract

Visually guided grasping movements directed to real, 3D objects are characterized by a distinguishable trajectory pattern that evades the influence of Weber’s law, a basic principle of perception. Conversely, grasping trajectories directed to 2D line drawings of objects adhere to Weber’s law. It can be argued, therefore, that during 2D grasping, the visuomotor system fails at operating in analytic mode and is intruded by irrelevant perceptual information. Here, we explored the visual and tactile cues that enable such analytic processing during grasping. In Experiment 1, we compared grasping directed to 3D objects with grasping directed to 2D object photos. Grasping directed to photos adhered to Weber’s law, suggesting that richness in visual detail does not contribute to analytic processing. In Experiment 2, we tested whether the visual presentation of 3D objects could support analytic processing even when only partial object-specific tactile information is provided. Surprisingly, grasping could be performed in an analytic fashion, violating Weber’s law. In Experiment 3, participants were denied of any haptic feedback at the end of the movement and grasping trajectories again showed adherence to Weber’s law. Taken together, the findings suggest that the presentation of real objects combined with indirect haptic information at the end of the movement is sufficient to allow analytic processing during grasp.

vorige artikel The effect of stimulus frequency, spectrum, duration, and location on temporal order judgment thresholds: distribution analysis

volgende artikel The exogenous and endogenous control of attentional focusing

Bingham, G., Coats, R., & Mon-Williams, M. (2007). Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 288–294.CrossRefPubMed

Bruno, N., Uccelli, S., Viviani, E., & de’Sperati, C. (2016). Both vision-for-perception and vision-for-action follow Weber’s law at small object sizes, but violate it at larger sizes. Neuropsychologia, 91, 327–334.CrossRefPubMed

Christiansen, J. H., Christensen, J., Grünbaum, T., & Kyllingsbæk, S. (2014). A common representation of spatial features drives action and perception: grasping and judging object features within trials. PloS one, 9(5), e94744.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

De-Wit, L. H., Kubilius, J., de Beeck, H. P. O., & Wagemans, J. (2013). Configural gestalts remain nothing more than the sum of their parts in visual agnosia. I-Perception, 4(8), 493–497.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eloka, O., Feuerhake, F., Janczyk, M., & Franz, V. H. (2015). Garner-interference in left-handed awkward grasping. Psychological Research, 79(4), 579–589.CrossRefPubMed

Freud, E., & Ganel, T. (2015). Visual control of action directed toward two-dimensional objects relies on holistic processing of object shape. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2003, 1377–1382.CrossRef

Freud, E., Macdonald, S. N., Chen, J., Quinlan, D. J., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2017). Getting a grip on reality: Grasping movements directed to real objects and images rely on dissociable neural representations. Cortex. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2017.02.020.

Ganel, T. (2015). Weber's law in grasping. Journal of vision , 15(8), 18.CrossRefPubMed

Ganel, T., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2008a). Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology, 18(14), 599–601.CrossRef

Ganel, T., Chajut, E., Tanzer, M., & Algom, D. (2008). Response: When does grasping escape Weber's law?. Current Biology, 18(23), R1090–R1091.CrossRef

Ganel, T., Freud, E., & Meiran, N. (2014). Action is immune to the effects of Weber’s law throughout the entire grasping trajectory. Journal of Vision, 14(7), 1–11.CrossRef

Ganel, T., Namdar, G., & Mirsky, A. (2017). Bimanual grasping does not adhere to Weber’s law. Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06799-4.

Gerhard, T. M., Culham, J. C., & Schwarzer, G. (2016). Distinct visual processing of real objects and pictures of those objects in 7-to 9-month-old infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 827. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00827.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to the Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gonzalez, C. L. R., 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.CrossRefPubMed

Goodale, M. A., & Ganel, T. (2015). Different modes of visual organization for perception and for action. Oxford Handbook of Perceptual Organization, 3(1), 1–19.

Goodale, M. A., Jakobson, L. S., & Keillor, J. M. (1994). Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia, 32(94), 1159–1178.CrossRefPubMed

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

Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349(6305), 154.CrossRefPubMed

Heath, M., Manzone, J., Khan, M., & Jazi, S. D. (2017). Vision for action and perception elicit dissociable adherence to Weber’s law across a range of ‘graspable’ target objects. Experimental Brain Research. doi:10.1007/s00221-017-5025-1.CrossRefPubMed

Hesse, C., Ball, K., & Schenk, T. (2012). Visuomotor performance based on peripheral vision is impaired in the visual form agnostic patient DF. Neuropsychologia, 50(1), 90–97.CrossRefPubMed

Himmelbach, M., Boehme, R., & Karnath, H. O. (2012). 20 years later: A second look on DF’s motor behaviour. Neuropsychologia, 50(1), 139–144.CrossRefPubMed

Holmes, S. A., & Heath, M. (2013). Goal-directed grasping: The dimensional properties of an object influence the nature of the visual information mediating aperture shaping. Brain and Cognition, 82(1), 18–24.CrossRefPubMed

Hosang, S., Chan, J., Jazi, S. D., & Heath, M. (2016). Grasping a 2D object: terminal haptic feedback supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration. Experimental Brain Research, 234(4), 945–954.

Jakobson, L. S., & Goodale, M. A. (1991). Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: A kinematic analysis of human prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 86(1), 199–208.CrossRefPubMed

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

Jarmasz, J., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: The number of observations principle. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology (Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale), 63(2), 124.CrossRef

Jeannerod, M. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(3), 235–254.CrossRefPubMed

Johansson, R. S., & Flanagan, J. R. (2009). Sensory control of object manipulation. Sensorimotor Control of Grasping: Physiology and Pathophysiology, 141–160.

Kwok, R. M., & Braddick, O. J. (2003). When does the Titchener Circles illusion exert an effect on grasping? Two- and three-dimensional targets. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 932–940.CrossRefPubMed

Löwenkamp, C., Gärtner, W., Haus, I. D., & Franz, V. H. (2015). Semantic grasping escapes Weber’s law. Neuropsychologia, 70, 235–245.CrossRefPubMed

Manzone, J., Jazi, S. D., Whitwell, R. L., & Heath, M. (2017). Biomechanical constraints do not influence pantomime-grasping adherence to Weber’s law: A reply to Utz et al. (2015). Vision Research, 130, 31–35.CrossRefPubMed

Pavese, A., Buxbaum, L. J., & Laurel, J. (2002). Action matters : The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9, 559–590.CrossRef

Rossit, S., Harvey, M., Butler, S. H., Szymanek, L., Morand, S., Monaco, S., & McIntosh, R. D. (2017). Impaired peripheral reaching and on-line corrections in patient DF: Optic ataxia with visual form agnosia. Cortex. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2017.04.004.CrossRefPubMed

Schenk, T. (2012). No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(6), 2013–2017.CrossRefPubMed

Smeets, J. B., & Brenner, E. (2008). Grasping Weber’s law. Current Biology, 18(23), R1089–R1090.CrossRefPubMed

Snow, J. C., Pettypiece, C. E., McAdam, T. D., McLean, A. D., Stroman, P. W., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2011). Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: Repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Scientific Reports, 1, 1–10.CrossRef

Snow, J. C., Strother, L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2014). Haptic shape processing in visual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(5), 1154–1167.CrossRefPubMed

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846.PubMed

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185–203.CrossRefPubMed

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: MIT Press.

Utz, K. S., Hesse, C., Aschenneller, N., & Schenk, T. (2015). Biomechanical factors may explain why grasping violates Weber’s law. Vision Research, 111, 22–30.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.CrossRefPubMed

Whitwell, R. L., Ganel, T., Byrne, C. M., & Goodale, M. A. (2015). Real-time vision, tactile cues, and visual form agnosia: Removing haptic feedback from a “natural” grasping task induces pantomime-like grasps. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Whitwell, R. L., Milner, A. D., Cavina-Pratesi, C., Byrne, C. M., & Goodale, M. A. (2014). DF’s visual brain in action: the role of tactile cues. Neuropsychologia, 55, 41–50.CrossRefPubMed

Wood, D. K., Chouinard, P. A., Major, A. J., & Goodale, M. A. (2016). Sensitivity to biomechanical limitations during postural decision-making depends on the integrity of posterior superior parietal cortex. Cortex. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.005.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Weber’s law in 2D and 3D grasping
Auteurs: Aviad Ozana
Tzvi Ganel
Publicatiedatum: 04-09-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0913-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2019

A matter of you versus me? Experiences of control in a joint go/no-go task

Contrasting effects of adaptation to a visuomotor rotation on explicit and implicit measures of sensory coupling

Ironic capture: top-down expectations exacerbate distraction in visual search

No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task

Spatial–numerical associations in first-graders: evidence from a manual-pointing task

Music-space associations are grounded, embodied and situated: examination of cello experts and non-musicians in a standard tone discrimination task