Planning versus online control: Dynamic illusion effects in grasping?

Spatial Vision

Volumn 16, Issue 3-4, 2003, Pages 211-223

  Franz, Volker H ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Control; Grasping; Planning; Visual illusions

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOTION CONTROL; MOTION PLANNING; ONLINE SYSTEMS;

GRASPING MOVEMENT; ONLINE CONTROL; VISUAL ILLUSIONS;

COMPUTER VISION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CONTROL; FEMALE; HAND GRIP; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REFERENCE VALUE; TIME; VISUAL ILLUSION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; INTENTION; INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; REFERENCE VALUES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0013096275     PISSN: 01691015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156856803322467491     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. X. and Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology 5 (6), 679-685.
2. Bruno, N. (2001). When does action resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (9), 379-382.
3. Carey, D. P. (2001). Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (3), 109-113.
4. Coren, S. and Enns, J. T. (1993). Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers, Perception and Psychophysics 54 (5), 579-588.
5. Danckert, J. A., Nadder, S., Haffenden, A. M., Schiff, K. C. and Goodale, M. A. (2002). A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: Planning versus online control, Exper. Brain Res. 144, 275-280.
6. Deni, J. R. and Brigner, W. L. (1997). Ebbinghaus illusion: Effect of figural similarity upon magnitude of illusion when context elements are equal in perceived size, Perceptual and Motor Skills 84, 1171-1175.
7. Ferris, F. L., Kassoff, A., Bresnick, G. H. and Bailey, I. (1982). New visual acuity charts for clinical research, Amer. J. Ophthalmol. 94 (1), 91-96.
8. Franz, V. H. (2001). Action does not resist visual illusions, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (11), 457-459.
9. Franz, V. H., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Bülthoff, H. H. and Fahle, M. (2000). Grasping visual illusions: No evidence for a dissociation between perception and action, Psychol. Sci. 11 (1), 20-25.
10. Franz, V. H., Fahle, M., Bülthoff, H. H. and Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2001). Effects of visual illusions on grasping, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance 27 (5), 1124-1144.
11. Franz, V. H., Bülthoff, H. H. and Fahle, M. (2003). Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: Obstacle-avoidance is not the explanation, Exper. Brain Res. (in press).
12. Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (7), 288-292.
13. Glover, S. and Dixon, P. (2001a). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching, J. Exper. Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance 27, 560-572.
14. Glover, S. and Dixon, P. (2001b). Motor adaptation to an optical illusion. Exper. Brain Res. 137, 254-258.
15. Glover, S. and Dixon, P. (2002). Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: Support for a planning/control model of action, Perception and Psychophysics 64 (2), 266-278.
16. Goodale, M. A. and Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action, Trends in Neurosciences 15, 97-112.
17. Haffenden, A. M., Schiff, K. C. and Goodale, M. A. (2001). The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: Nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp, Current Biology 11 (3), 177-181.
18. Jeannerod M. (1981). Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects, in: Attention and Performance, Long, J. and Baddeley, A. (Eds), Vol. 9, pp. 153-168, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
19. Jeannerod, M. (1994). The timing of natural prehension movements, J. Motor Behavior 16 (3), 235-254.
20. Loftus, G. R. and Masson, E. J. M. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1 (4), 476-490.
21. Milgrams, P. (1987). A spectacle-mounted liquid-crystal tachistoscope, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 19 (5), 449-456.
22. Milner, A. D. and Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
23. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory, Neuropsychologia 9, 97-113.
24. Plodowski, A. and Jackson, S. R. (2001). Vision: Getting to grips with the Ebbinghaus illusion, Current Biology 11 (8), R306-R308.
25. Smeets, J. B. J. and Brenner, E. (2001). Action beyond our grasp, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (7), 287.
26. Snowden, R. (2000). The last grasp? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (6), 213.
27. Woodworth, R. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement, Psychol. Rev. Monograph 3 (2), 1-114.
28. Zanuttini, L., Zavagno, D. and Agostini, A. (1996). The Ebbinghaus illusion: Geometric versus taxonomic factors, in: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the International Society of Psychophysics, Padua, Italy, Masin, S.C. (Ed.), pp. 435-439, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.