A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features Within Trials

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2014 May 3

PMID 24788941

Citations 4

Authors

Jens H Christiansen

Jeppe Christensen

Thor Grunbaum

Soren Kyllingsbaek

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Spatial features of an object can be specified using two different response types: either by use of symbols or motorically by directly acting upon the object. Is this response dichotomy reflected in a dual representation of the visual world: one for perception and one for action? Previously, symbolic and motoric responses, specifying location, has been shown to rely on a common representation. What about more elaborate features such as length and orientation? Here we show that when motoric and symbolic responses are made within the same trial, the probability of making the same symbolic and motoric response is well above chance for both length and orientation. This suggests that motoric and symbolic responses to length and orientation are driven by a common representation. We also show that, for both response types, the spatial features of an object are processed independently. This finding of matching object-processing characteristics is also in agreement with the idea of a common representation driving both response types.

Citing Articles

Grasping follows Weber's law: How to use response variability as a proxy for JND.

Bhatia K, Lowenkamp C, Franz V J Vis. 2022; 22(12):13.

PMID: 36374493 PMC: 9669808. DOI: 10.1167/jov.22.12.13.

Weber's law in 2D and 3D grasping.

Ozana A, Ganel T Psychol Res. 2017; 83(5):977-988.

PMID: 28871420 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0913-3.

Grasping a 2D object: terminal haptic feedback supports an absolute visuo-haptic calibration.

Hosang S, Chan J, Davarpanah Jazi S, Heath M Exp Brain Res. 2015; 234(4):945-54.

PMID: 26680769 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4521-4.

Pantomime-grasping: the 'return' of haptic feedback supports the absolute specification of object size.

Davarpanah Jazi S, Yau M, Westwood D, Heath M Exp Brain Res. 2015; 233(7):2029-40.

PMID: 25869741 DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4274-0.

References

Hesse C, Franz V . Grasping remembered objects: exponential decay of the visual memory. Vision Res. 2010; 50(24):2642-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.026. View

Westwood D, Danckert J, Servos P, Goodale M . Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Exp Brain Res. 2002; 144(2):262-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-002-1068-y. View

Franz V, Gegenfurtner K . Grasping visual illusions: Consistent data and no dissociation. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008; 25(7):920-50. DOI: 10.1080/02643290701862449. View

Goodale M, Milner A . Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 1992; 15(1):20-5. DOI: 10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8. View

Milner A, Ganel T, Goodale M . Does grasping in patient D.F. depend on vision?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012; 16(5):256-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.004. View

Westwood D, Goodale M . Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spat Vis. 2003; 16(3-4):243-54. DOI: 10.1163/156856803322467518. View

Westwood D, Goodale M . Converging evidence for diverging pathways: neuropsychology and psychophysics tell the same story. Vision Res. 2010; 51(8):804-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.014. View

Kyllingsbaek S, Bundesen C . Parallel processing in a multifeature whole-report paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007; 33(1):64-82. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.64. View

Stone L, Krauzlis R . Shared motion signals for human perceptual decisions and oculomotor actions. J Vis. 2004; 3(11):725-36. DOI: 10.1167/3.11.7. View

10.

Gegenfurtner K, Franz V . A comparison of localization judgments and pointing precision. J Vis. 2008; 7(5):11.1-12. DOI: 10.1167/7.5.11. View

11.

Goodale M . Transforming vision into action. Vision Res. 2010; 51(13):1567-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.027. View

12.

Goodale M, Milner A, Jakobson L, Carey D . A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature. 1991; 349(6305):154-6. DOI: 10.1038/349154a0. View

13.

Cardoso-Leite P, Gorea A . On the perceptual/motor dissociation: a review of concepts, theory, experimental paradigms and data interpretations. Seeing Perceiving. 2010; 23(2):89-151. DOI: 10.1163/187847510X503588. View

14.

Singhal A, Culham J, Chinellato E, Goodale M . Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. J Vis. 2008; 7(5):5.1-12. DOI: 10.1167/7.5.5. View

15.

Schenk T . No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(6):2013-7. PMC: 6621711. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3413-11.2012. View

16.

Milner D, Dyde R . Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don't?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(1):10-11. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00004-9. View

17.

Franz V, Gegenfurtner K, Bulthoff H, Fahle M . Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychol Sci. 2001; 11(1):20-5. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00209. View

18.

Schenk T, Franz V, Bruno N . Vision-for-perception and vision-for-action: which model is compatible with the available psychophysical and neuropsychological data?. Vision Res. 2011; 51(8):812-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.02.003. View

19.

Goodale M, Westwood D, Milner A . Two distinct modes of control for object-directed action. Prog Brain Res. 2003; 144:131-44. DOI: 10.1016/s0079-6123(03)14409-3. View

20.

Schenk T, McIntosh R . Do we have independent visual streams for perception and action?. Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 1(1):52-62. DOI: 10.1080/17588920903388950. View