A general deficit of the 'automatic pilot' with posterior parietal cortex lesions?

Lesions of the parieto-occipital junction (POJ) in humans cause gross deviations of reaching movements and impaired grip formation if the targets are located in the subjects' peripheral visual field. Movements to central targets are typically less impaired. This disorder has been termed "optic ataxia". It has been suggested that a general deficit of online corrections under central as well as peripheral viewing conditions might be sufficient to explain this discrepancy. According to this hypothesis, patients with optic ataxia should demonstrate an impaired online correction of grip aperture under central viewing conditions if the target object changes its size during the grasping movement. We investigated this prediction in a patient with optic ataxia (I.G.) in a virtual visuo-haptic grasping task. We imposed an isolated need for online corrections of the hand aperture independently of positional changes of the target object. While we found some general inaccuracies of her grasping movements, the patient did not show a specific impairment of online adjustment of grip aperture. On the contrary, I.G. smoothly adjusted her grip aperture comparable to healthy subjects. A general deficit of fast movement correction affecting targets in peripheral as well as central visual fields thus does not appear to account for the overt visuomotor deficits in optic ataxia. Rather, it seems more likely that an anatomical dissociation between visuomotor pathways related to actions in the central and in the peripheral visual field underlies the dissociation of visuomotor performance depending on the retinotopic target position in optic ataxia.

Illusion effects on grasping are temporally constant not dynamic.

The authors tested whether the effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping are corrected during late phases of the movement. Surprisingly, the grasp aperture was corrected neither under no-vision (N = 52) nor under full-vision (N = 48) conditions. The authors show that previous reports of a correction (e.g., S. Glover & P. Dixon, 2002a) are due to 2 artifacts: (a) inclusion of time points at which the target object was already touched and (b) erroneous statistics. This removes the central evidence on which S. Glover and P. Dixon's (2001a) planning-control model of action is based. In addition, the authors' results can help to refine more classic notions of motor control (e.g., R. Woodworth, 1899). In consequence, the authors reject S. Glover and P. Dixon's (2001a) planning-control model but not classic online-control theories.

Effects of visual illusions on grasping.

In 2 experiments, the Muller-Lyer illusion (F. C. Muller-Lyer, 1889; N = 16) and the parallel-lines illusion (W. Wundt, 1898; N = 26) clearly affected maximum preshape aperture in grasping (both ps < .001). The grasping effects were similar but not perfectly equal to the perceptual effects. Control experiments show that these differences can be attributed to problems in matching the perceptual task and the grasping task. A model is described stating the assumptions that are needed to compare the grasping effects and the perceptual effects of visual illusions. Further studies on the relationship between perception and grasping are reviewed. These studies provide no clear evidence for a dissociation between perception and grasping and therefore do not support the action versus perception hypothesis (A. D. Milner & M. A. Goodale, 1995).

Learning to detect but not to grasp suppressed visual stimuli.

A central implication of the two-visual-systems hypothesis (TVSH) is that the dorsal visuomotor system (vision-for-action) can make use of invisible information, whereas the ventral system (vision-for-perception) cannot (Milner & Goodale, 1995). Therefore, actions such as grasping movements should be influenced by invisible information while conscious reports remain unaffected. To test this assumption, we used a dichoptic stimulation technique--continuous flash suppression (CFS)--which has the potency to render stimuli invisible for up to seconds (Tsuchiya & Koch, 2005). In two experiments using CFS, participants were asked to grasp for invisible bars of different sizes (Experiment 1) or orientations (Experiment 2), or to report both measures verbally. Target visibility was measured trial-by-trial using the perceptual awareness scale (PAS). We found no evidence for the use of invisible information by the visuomotor system despite extensive training (600 trials) and the availability of haptic feedback. Participants neither learned to scale their maximum grip aperture to the size of the invisible stimulus, nor to align their hand to its orientation. Careful control of stimulus visibility across training sessions, however, revealed a robust tendency towards decreasing perceptual thresholds under CFS. We discuss our results within the framework of the TVSH and with respect to alternative models which emphasize the close functional interaction between the dorsal and ventral visual systems.

Visual illusions, delayed grasping, and memory: no shift from dorsal to ventral control.

We tested whether a delay between stimulus presentation and grasping leads to a shift from dorsal to ventral control of the movement, as suggested by the perception-action theory of Milner and Goodale (Milner, A.D., & Goodale, M.A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.). In this theory the dorsal cortical stream has a short memory, such that after a few seconds the dorsal information is decayed and the action is guided by the ventral stream. Accordingly, grasping should become responsive to certain visual illusions after a delay (because only the ventral stream is assumed to be deceived by these illusions). We used the Müller-Lyer illusion, the typical illusion in this area of research, and replicated the increase of the motor illusion after a delay. However, we found that this increase is not due to memory demands but to the availability of visual feedback during movement execution which leads to online corrections of the movement. Because such online corrections are to be expected if the movement is guided by one single representation of object size, we conclude that there is no evidence for a shift from dorsal to ventral control in delayed grasping of the Müller-Lyer illusion. We also performed the first empirical test of a critique Goodale (Goodale, M.A. (2006, October 27). Visual duplicity: Action without perception in the human visual system. The XIV. Kanizsa lecture, Triest, Italy.) raised against studies finding illusion effects in grasping: Goodale argued that these studies used methods that lead to unnatural grasping which is guided by the ventral stream. Therefore, these studies might never have measured the dorsal stream, but always the ventral stream. We found clear evidence against this conjecture.

Manual size estimation: a neuropsychological measure of perception?

Manual size estimation (participants indicate the size of an object with index finger and thumb) is often interpreted as a measure of perceptual size information in the visual system, in contrast to size information used by the motor system in visually guided grasping. Because manual estimation is a relatively new measure, I compared it to a more traditional perceptual measure (method of adjustment). Manual estimation showed larger effects of the Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion than the traditional perceptual measure. This inconsistency can be resolved by taking into account that manual estimation is also unusually responsive to a physical variation of size. If we correct for the effect of physical size, manual estimation and the traditional perceptual measure show similar illusion effects. Most interestingly, the corrected illusion effects are also similar to the illusion effects found in grasping. This suggests that the same neuronal signals which generate the illusion in the traditional perceptual measure are also responsible for the effects of the illusion on manual estimation and on grasping.

Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: obstacle avoidance is not the explanation.

The perception-versus-action hypothesis states that visual information is processed in two different streams, one for visual awareness (or perception) and one for motor performance. Previous reports that the Ebbinghaus illusion deceives perception but not grasping seemed to indicate that this dichotomy between perception and action was fundamental enough to be reflected in the overt behavior of non-neurological, healthy humans. Contrary to this view we show that the Ebbinghaus illusion affects grasping to the same extent as perception. We also show that the grasp effects cannot be accounted for by non-perceptual obstacle avoidance mechanisms as has recently been suggested. Instead, even subtle variations of the Ebbinghaus illusion affect grasping in the same way as they affect perception. Our results suggest that the same signals are responsible for the perceptual effects and for the motor effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion. This casts doubt on one line of evidence, which used to strongly favor the perception-versus-action hypothesis.

Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action.

Neuropsychological studies prompted the theory that the primate visual system might be organized into two parallel pathways, one for conscious perception and one for guiding action. Supporting evidence in healthy subjects seemed to come from a dissociation in visual illusions: In previous studies, the Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion deceived perceptual judgments of size, but only marginally influenced the size estimates used in grasping. Contrary to those results, the findings from the present study show that there is no difference in the sizes of the perceptual and grasp illusions if the perceptual and grasping tasks are appropriately matched. We show that the differences found previously can be accounted for by a hitherto unknown, nonadditive effect in the illusion. We conclude that the illusion does not provide evidence for the existence of two distinct pathways for perception and action in the visual system.