Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Open Access Grasping and Pointing — Visual Conflict and Interference

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Grasping and Pointing — Visual Conflict and Interference

  • HTML
  • PDF
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Multisensory Research
For more content, see Seeing and Perceiving and Spatial Vision.

There have been many debates of the two-visual-systems (what vs. how or perception vs. action) hypothesis that was proposed by Goodale and his colleagues. Many researchers have provided a variety of evidence for or against the hypothesis. For instance, a study performed by Aglioti et al. offered good evidence for the two-visual-systems theory using the Ebbinghaus illusion, but some researchers who used other visual illusions failed to find consistent results. Therefore, we used a perceptual task of conflict or interference to test this hypothesis. If the conflict or interference in perception had an influence on the processing of perception alone and did not affect the processing of action, we could infer that the two visual systems are separated, and vice versa. In the current study, we carried out two experiments which employed the Stroop, Garner and SNARC paradigms and used graspable 3-D Arabic numerals. We aimed to find if the effects resulting from perceptual conflicts or interferences would affect participants’ grasping and pointing. The results showed that the interaction between Stroop and numeral order (ascending or descending, or SNARC) was significant, and the SNARC effect significantly affected action, but the main effects of Stroop and Garner interference were not significant. The results indicated that, to some degree, perceptual conflict affects action processing. The results did not provide evidence for two separate visual systems.

Affiliations: 1: 1Department of Psychology, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1688 Meiling Avenue, Wanli District, Nanchang 330004, China ; 2: 2Tianjin University of Technology and Education, Tianjin, China ; 3: 3Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: shenxunbing@yahoo.com

There have been many debates of the two-visual-systems (what vs. how or perception vs. action) hypothesis that was proposed by Goodale and his colleagues. Many researchers have provided a variety of evidence for or against the hypothesis. For instance, a study performed by Aglioti et al. offered good evidence for the two-visual-systems theory using the Ebbinghaus illusion, but some researchers who used other visual illusions failed to find consistent results. Therefore, we used a perceptual task of conflict or interference to test this hypothesis. If the conflict or interference in perception had an influence on the processing of perception alone and did not affect the processing of action, we could infer that the two visual systems are separated, and vice versa. In the current study, we carried out two experiments which employed the Stroop, Garner and SNARC paradigms and used graspable 3-D Arabic numerals. We aimed to find if the effects resulting from perceptual conflicts or interferences would affect participants’ grasping and pointing. The results showed that the interaction between Stroop and numeral order (ascending or descending, or SNARC) was significant, and the SNARC effect significantly affected action, but the main effects of Stroop and Garner interference were not significant. The results indicated that, to some degree, perceptual conflict affects action processing. The results did not provide evidence for two separate visual systems.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/journals/22134808/31/5/22134808_031_05_s006_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/22134808-00002576&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
/content/journals/10.1163/22134808-00002576
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Aglioti S., DeSouza J. F., Goodale M. A. (1995). "Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand", Curr. Biol. Vol 5, 679685. [Crossref]
2. Algom D., Dekel A., Pansky A. (1996). "The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: the Stroop effect revisited", Mem. Cogn. Vol 24, 557572. [Crossref]
3. Bruno N., Uccelli S., Viviani E., de’Sperati C. (2016). "Both vision-for-perception and vision-for-action follow Weber’s law at small object sizes, but violate it at larger sizes", Neuropsychologia Vol 91, 327334. [Crossref]
4. Carey D. P. (2001). "Do action systems resist visual illusions?" Trends Cogn. Sci. Vol 5, 109113. [Crossref]
5. Dewar M. T., Carey D. P. (2006). "Visuomotor ‘immunity’ to perceptual illusion: a mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception–action dissociation", Neuropsychologia Vol 44, 15011508. [Crossref]
6. Foley R. T., Whitwell R. L., Goodale M. A. (2015). "The two-visual-systems hypothesis and the perspectival features of visual experience", Consc. Cogn. Vol 35, 225233. [Crossref]
7. Foster R. M., Kleinholdermann U., Leifheit S., Franz V. H. (2012). "Does bimanual grasping of the Muller–Lyer illusion provide evidence for a functional segregation of dorsal and ventral streams?" Neuropsychologia Vol 50, 33923402. [Crossref]
8. Franz V. (2001). "Action does not resist visual illusions", Trends Cogn. Sci. Vol 5, 457459. [Crossref]
9. Franz V. H., Gegenfurtner K. R. (2008). "Grasping visual illusions: consistent data and no dissociation", Cogn. Neuropsychol. Vol 25, 920950. [Crossref]
10. Ganel T., Goodale M. A. (2003). "Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape", Nature Vol 426, 664667. [Crossref]
11. Garner W. R. (1978). "Selective attention to attributes and to stimuli", J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. Vol 107, 287308. [Crossref]
12. Gevers W., Lammertyn J. (2005). "The hunt for SNARC", Psychol. Sci. Vol 47, 1021.
13. Gilster R., Kuhtz-Buschbeck J. P., Wiesner C. D., Ferstl R. (2006). "Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion are ambiguous", Exp. Brain Res. Vol 171, 416420. [Crossref]
14. Goodale M. A. (1992). "Separate visual pathways for perception and action", Trends Neurosci. Vol 15, 2025. [Crossref]
15. Goodale M. A. (2014). "How (and why) the visual control of action differs from visual perception", Proc. R. Soc. B Vol 281, 20140337. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2014.0337. [Crossref]
16. Goodale M. A., Westwood D. A. (2004). "An evolving view of duplex vision: separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action", Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. Vol 14, 203211. [Crossref]
17. Kroliczak G., Heard P., Goodale M. A., Gregory R. L. (2006). "Dissociation of perception and action unmasked by the hollow-face illusion", Brain Res. Vol 1080, 916. [Crossref]
18. Milner A. D., Goodale M. A. (2008). "Two visual systems re-viewed", Neuropsychologia Vol 46, 774785. [Crossref]
19. Namdar G., Ganel T. (2017). "Numerical magnitude affects online execution, and not planning of visuomotor control", Psychol. Res. Vol 81, 18. [Crossref]
20. Namdar G., Tzelgov J., Algom D., Ganel T. (2014). "Grasping numbers: evidence for automatic influence of numerical magnitude on grip aperture", Psychon. Bull. Rev. Vol 21, 830835. [Crossref]
21. Norman J. (2002). "Two visual systems and two theories of perception: an attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches", Behav. Brain Sci. Vol 25, 7396.
22. Pansky A., Algom D. (2002). "Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: attention preempts automaticity", J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. Vol 28, 259274. [Crossref]
23. Shalev L., Algom D. (2000). "Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner’s beam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention", J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. Vol 26, 9971017. [Crossref]
24. Smeets J. B., Brenner E., de Grave D. D., Cuijpers R. H. (2002). "Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes", Exp. Brain Res. Vol 147, 135144. [Crossref]
25. Smeets J. B. J., Brenner E. (2001). "Perception and action are inseparable", Ecol. Psychol. Vol 13, 163166. [Crossref]
26. Turconi E., Campbell J. I. D., Seron X. (2006). "Numerical order and quantity processing in number comparison", Cognition Vol 98, 273285. [Crossref]
27. Ungerleider L. G., Haxby J. V. (1994). "‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain", Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. Vol 4, 157165. [Crossref]
28. Westwood D. A., Goodale M. A. (2011). "Converging evidence for diverging pathways: neuropsychology and psychophysics tell the same story", Vis. Res. Vol 51, 804811. [Crossref]
29. Whitwell R. L., Milner A. D., Goodale M. A. (2014). "The two visual systems hypothesis: new challenges and insights from visual form agnosic patient DF", Front. Neurol. Vol 5, 255. DOI:10.3389/fneur.2014.00255. [Crossref]
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134808-00002576
Loading
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134808-00002576
2018-01-19
2018-10-23

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation