Planning to reach for an object changes how the reacher perceives it

Psychological Science

Volumn 18, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 713-719

  Vishton, Peter M ^a   Stephens, Nicolette J ^a   Nelson, Lauren A ^a   Morra, Sarah E ^a   Brunick, Kaitlin L ^a   Stevens, Jennifer A ^a  

^a William and Mary   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; STUDENT; TOUCH; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL ILLUSION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SIZE PERCEPTION; STUDENTS; TOUCH; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 34547566590     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01965.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J.F.X. Goodale, M.A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5, 679 685.
2. Brenner, E. Smeets, J.B.J. (1996). Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object. Experimental Brain Research, 111, 473 476.
3. Carey, D.P. (2001). Do action systems resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 109 113.
4. Dassonville, P., Bridgeman, B., Bala, J.K., Thiem, P. Sampanes, A. (2004). The induced Roelofs effect: Two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame? Vision Research, 44, 603 611.
5. de Grave, D.D.J., Brenner, E. Smeets, J.B.J. (2004). Illusions as a tool to study the coding of pointing movements. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 56 62.
6. Dewar, M.T. Carey, D.P. (2006). Visuomotor 'immunity' to perceptual illusion: A mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception-action dissociation. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1501 1508.
7. Fitts, P.M. Peterson, J.R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103 112.
8. Franz, V.H. (2001). Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 457 459.
9. Franz, V.H. (2003). Manual size estimation: A neuropsychological measure of perception? Experimental Brain Research, 151, 471 477.
10. Franz, V.H., Fahle, M., Bülthoff, H.H. Gegenfurtner, K.R. (2001). The effect of visual illusions on grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1124 1144.
11. Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action [Target article and commentaries]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 3 78.
12. Glover, S. Dixon, P. (2001). Motor adaptation to an optical illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 137, 254 258.
13. Haffenden, A.M. Goodale, M.A. (1998). The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 122 136.
14. Hanisch, C., Konczak, J. Dohle, C. (2001). The effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping behaviour in children. Experimental Brain Research, 137, 237 245.
15. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M. Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. NeuroReport, 7, 2325 2330.
16. Lee, J.H. van Donkelaar, P. (2002). Dorsal and ventral visual stream contributions to perception-action interactions during pointing. Experimental Brain Research, 143, 440 446.
17. Milner, A.D. Goodale, M.A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, England : Oxford University Press.
18. Paulignan, Y., MacKenzie, C., Marteniuk, R. Jeannerod, M. (1997). Influence of object position and size on human prehension movements. Experimental Brain Research, 114, 226 234.
19. Proffitt, D.R., Creem, S.H. Zosh, W.D. (2001). Seeing mountains in mole hills: Geographical-slant perception. Psychological Science, 12, 418 423.
20. Smeets, J.B.J., Brenner, E., de Grave, D.D.J. Cuijpers, R.H. (2002). Illusions in action: Consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes. Experimental Brain Research, 147, 135 144.
21. Vishton, P.M. Fabre, E. (2003). Effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on different behaviors: One- and two-handed grasping; one- and two-handed manual estimation; metric and comparative judgment. Spatial Vision, 16, 377 392.
22. Vishton, P.M., Rea, J.G., Cutting, J.E. Nuñez, L. (1999). Comparing effects of the horizontal-vertical illusion on grip scaling and judgment: Relative vs. absolute, not perception vs. action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1659 1672.
23. Westwood, D.A., McEachern, T. Roy, E.A. (2001). Delayed grasping of a Muller-Lyer figure. Experimental Brain Research, 141, 166 173.
24. Witt, J.K., Proffitt, D.R. Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880 888.
25. Wraga, M., Creem, S.H. Proffitt, D.R. (2000). Perception-action dissociations of a walkable Müller-Lyer configuration. Psychological Science, 11, 239 243.