» Articles » PMID: 19665467

The Poggendorff Illusion Affects Manual Pointing As Well As Perceptual Judgements

Overview
Specialties Neurology
Psychology
Date 2009 Aug 12
PMID 19665467
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Pointing movements made to a target defined by the imaginary intersection of a pointer with a distant landing line were examined in healthy human observers in order to determine whether such motor responses are susceptible to the Poggendorff effect. In this well-known geometric illusion observers make systematic extrapolation errors when the pointer abuts a second line (the inducer). The kinematics of extrapolation movements, in which no explicit target was present, where similar to those made in response to a rapid-onset (explicit) dot target. The results unambiguously demonstrate that motor (pointing) responses are susceptible to the illusion. In fact, raw motor biases were greater than for perceptual responses: in the absence of an inducer (and hence also the acute angle of the Poggendorff stimulus) perceptual responses were near-veridical, whilst motor responses retained a bias. Therefore, the full Poggendorff stimulus contained two biases: one mediated by the acute angle formed between the oblique pointer and the inducing line (the classic Poggendorff effect), which affected both motor and perceptual responses equally, and another bias, which was independent of the inducer and primarily affected motor responses. We conjecture that this additional motor bias is associated with an undershoot in the unknown direction of movement and provide evidence to justify this claim. In conclusion, both manual pointing and perceptual judgements are susceptible to the well-known Poggendorff effect, supporting the notion of a unitary representation of space for action and perception or else an early locus for the effect, prior to the divergence of processing streams.

Citing Articles

Rapid eye movements to a virtual target are biased by illusory context in the Poggendorff figure.

Melmoth D, Grant S, Solomon J, Morgan M Exp Brain Res. 2015; 233(7):1993-2000.

PMID: 25912606 PMC: 4464882. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4263-3.


Geometrical illusions are not always where you think they are: a review of some classical and less classical illusions, and ways to describe them.

Ninio J Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:856.

PMID: 25389400 PMC: 4211387. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00856.


The neural correlates of visuospatial perceptual and oculomotor extrapolation.

Tibber M, Saygin A, Grant S, Melmoth D, Rees G, Morgan M PLoS One. 2010; 5(3):e9664.

PMID: 20300627 PMC: 2837745. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009664.

References
1.
Westwood D, Heath M, Roy E . The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension. Exp Brain Res. 2000; 134(4):456-63. DOI: 10.1007/s002210000489. View

2.
Bruno N, Bernardis P . When does action resist visual illusions? Effector position modulates illusory influences on motor responses. Exp Brain Res. 2003; 151(2):225-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1440-6. View

3.
Gentilucci M, Chieffi S, Deprati E, Saetti M, Toni I . Visual illusion and action. Neuropsychologia. 1996; 34(5):369-76. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00128-x. View

4.
Blakemore C, Carpenter R, Georgeson M . Lateral inhibition between orientation detectors in the human visual system. Nature. 1970; 228(5266):37-9. DOI: 10.1038/228037a0. View

5.
Haffenden A, Goodale M . The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. J Cogn Neurosci. 1998; 10(1):122-36. DOI: 10.1162/089892998563824. View