The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study

Karl K. Kopiske; Nicola Bruno; Constanze Hesse; Thomas Schenk; Volker H. Franz

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020

The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study

Karl K. Kopiske, Nicola Bruno, Constanze Hesse, Thomas Schenk, Volker H. Franz

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

73 Citations (Scopus)

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

It has often been suggested that visual illusions affect perception but not actions such as grasping, as predicted by the “two-visual-systems” hypothesis of Milner and Goodale (1995, The Visual Brain in Action, MIT press). However, at least for the Ebbinghaus illusion, relevant studies seem to reveal a consistent illusion effect on grasping (Franz & Gegenfurtner, 2008. Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology). Two interpretations are possible: either grasping is not immune to illusions (arguing against dissociable processing mechanisms for vision-for-perception and vision-for-action), or some other factors modulate grasping in ways that mimic a vision-for perception effect in actions. It has been suggested that one such factor may be obstacle avoidance (Haffenden Schiff & Goodale, 2001. The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Current Biology, 11, 177–181). In four different labs (total N = 144), we conducted an exact replication of previous studies suggesting obstacle avoidance mechanisms, implementing conditions that tested grasping as well as multiple perceptual tasks. This replication was supplemented by additional conditions to obtain more conclusive results. Our results confirm that grasping is affected by the Ebbinghaus illusion and demonstrate that this effect cannot be explained by obstacle avoidance.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	130-152
Number of pages	23
Journal	Cortex
Volume	79
Early online date	6 Apr 2016
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020
Publication status	Published - Jun 2016

Bibliographical note

Acknowledgements
We thank Brian Roberts and Mike Harris for responding to our questions regarding their paper; Zoltan Dienes for advice on Bayes factors; Denise Fischer, Melanie Römer, Ioana Stanciu, Aleksandra Romanczuk, Stefano Uccelli, Nuria Martos Sánchez, and Rosa María Beño Ruiz de la Sierra for help collecting data; Eva Viviani for managing data collection in Parma. We thank Maurizio Gentilucci for letting us use his lab, and the Centro Intradipartimentale Mente e Cervello (CIMeC), University of Trento, and especially Francesco Pavani for lending us his motion tracking equipment. We thank Rachel Foster for proofreading. KKK was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship as part of a grant to VHF within the International Graduate Research Training Group on Cross-Modal Interaction in Natural and Artificial Cognitive Systems (CINACS; DFG IKG-1247) and TS by a grant (DFG – SCHE 735/3-1); both from the German Research Council.

Keywords

action perception
visual processing
illusions
grasping
manual size estimation

Access to Document

10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020Licence: Unspecified

Accepted Manuscript
© 2016. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Accepted author manuscript, 1.3 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Constanze Hesse
- Psychology, Psychology - Personal Chair
Person: Academic

Cite this

@article{bf05071653624aa194c0afd201c541b8,

title = "The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study",

abstract = "It has often been suggested that visual illusions affect perception but not actions such as grasping, as predicted by the “two-visual-systems” hypothesis of Milner and Goodale (1995, The Visual Brain in Action, MIT press). However, at least for the Ebbinghaus illusion, relevant studies seem to reveal a consistent illusion effect on grasping (Franz & Gegenfurtner, 2008. Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology). Two interpretations are possible: either grasping is not immune to illusions (arguing against dissociable processing mechanisms for vision-for-perception and vision-for-action), or some other factors modulate grasping in ways that mimic a vision-for perception effect in actions. It has been suggested that one such factor may be obstacle avoidance (Haffenden Schiff & Goodale, 2001. The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Current Biology, 11, 177–181). In four different labs (total N = 144), we conducted an exact replication of previous studies suggesting obstacle avoidance mechanisms, implementing conditions that tested grasping as well as multiple perceptual tasks. This replication was supplemented by additional conditions to obtain more conclusive results. Our results confirm that grasping is affected by the Ebbinghaus illusion and demonstrate that this effect cannot be explained by obstacle avoidance.",

keywords = "action perception, visual processing, illusions, grasping, manual size estimation",

author = "Kopiske, {Karl K.} and Nicola Bruno and Constanze Hesse and Thomas Schenk and Franz, {Volker H.}",

note = "Acknowledgements We thank Brian Roberts and Mike Harris for responding to our questions regarding their paper; Zoltan Dienes for advice on Bayes factors; Denise Fischer, Melanie R{\"o}mer, Ioana Stanciu, Aleksandra Romanczuk, Stefano Uccelli, Nuria Martos S{\'a}nchez, and Rosa Mar{\'i}a Be{\~n}o Ruiz de la Sierra for help collecting data; Eva Viviani for managing data collection in Parma. We thank Maurizio Gentilucci for letting us use his lab, and the Centro Intradipartimentale Mente e Cervello (CIMeC), University of Trento, and especially Francesco Pavani for lending us his motion tracking equipment. We thank Rachel Foster for proofreading. KKK was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship as part of a grant to VHF within the International Graduate Research Training Group on Cross-Modal Interaction in Natural and Artificial Cognitive Systems (CINACS; DFG IKG-1247) and TS by a grant (DFG – SCHE 735/3-1); both from the German Research Council.",

year = "2016",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020",

language = "English",

volume = "79",

pages = "130--152",

journal = "Cortex",

issn = "0010-9452",

publisher = "Masson SpA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The functional subdivision of the visual brain

T2 - Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study

AU - Kopiske, Karl K.

AU - Bruno, Nicola

AU - Hesse, Constanze

AU - Schenk, Thomas

AU - Franz, Volker H.

N1 - Acknowledgements We thank Brian Roberts and Mike Harris for responding to our questions regarding their paper; Zoltan Dienes for advice on Bayes factors; Denise Fischer, Melanie Römer, Ioana Stanciu, Aleksandra Romanczuk, Stefano Uccelli, Nuria Martos Sánchez, and Rosa María Beño Ruiz de la Sierra for help collecting data; Eva Viviani for managing data collection in Parma. We thank Maurizio Gentilucci for letting us use his lab, and the Centro Intradipartimentale Mente e Cervello (CIMeC), University of Trento, and especially Francesco Pavani for lending us his motion tracking equipment. We thank Rachel Foster for proofreading. KKK was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship as part of a grant to VHF within the International Graduate Research Training Group on Cross-Modal Interaction in Natural and Artificial Cognitive Systems (CINACS; DFG IKG-1247) and TS by a grant (DFG – SCHE 735/3-1); both from the German Research Council.

PY - 2016/6

Y1 - 2016/6

N2 - It has often been suggested that visual illusions affect perception but not actions such as grasping, as predicted by the “two-visual-systems” hypothesis of Milner and Goodale (1995, The Visual Brain in Action, MIT press). However, at least for the Ebbinghaus illusion, relevant studies seem to reveal a consistent illusion effect on grasping (Franz & Gegenfurtner, 2008. Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology). Two interpretations are possible: either grasping is not immune to illusions (arguing against dissociable processing mechanisms for vision-for-perception and vision-for-action), or some other factors modulate grasping in ways that mimic a vision-for perception effect in actions. It has been suggested that one such factor may be obstacle avoidance (Haffenden Schiff & Goodale, 2001. The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Current Biology, 11, 177–181). In four different labs (total N = 144), we conducted an exact replication of previous studies suggesting obstacle avoidance mechanisms, implementing conditions that tested grasping as well as multiple perceptual tasks. This replication was supplemented by additional conditions to obtain more conclusive results. Our results confirm that grasping is affected by the Ebbinghaus illusion and demonstrate that this effect cannot be explained by obstacle avoidance.

AB - It has often been suggested that visual illusions affect perception but not actions such as grasping, as predicted by the “two-visual-systems” hypothesis of Milner and Goodale (1995, The Visual Brain in Action, MIT press). However, at least for the Ebbinghaus illusion, relevant studies seem to reveal a consistent illusion effect on grasping (Franz & Gegenfurtner, 2008. Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation. Cognitive Neuropsychology). Two interpretations are possible: either grasping is not immune to illusions (arguing against dissociable processing mechanisms for vision-for-perception and vision-for-action), or some other factors modulate grasping in ways that mimic a vision-for perception effect in actions. It has been suggested that one such factor may be obstacle avoidance (Haffenden Schiff & Goodale, 2001. The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Current Biology, 11, 177–181). In four different labs (total N = 144), we conducted an exact replication of previous studies suggesting obstacle avoidance mechanisms, implementing conditions that tested grasping as well as multiple perceptual tasks. This replication was supplemented by additional conditions to obtain more conclusive results. Our results confirm that grasping is affected by the Ebbinghaus illusion and demonstrate that this effect cannot be explained by obstacle avoidance.

KW - action perception

KW - visual processing

KW - illusions

KW - grasping

KW - manual size estimation

U2 - 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020

DO - 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020

M3 - Article

SN - 0010-9452

VL - 79

SP - 130

EP - 152

JO - Cortex

JF - Cortex

ER -

The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Profiles

Constanze Hesse

Cite this