The Brentano illusion influences goal-directed movements of the left and right hand to the same extent

Exploring perceptual grouping by proximity principle in multistable dot lattices: Dissociation between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action

Perceptual grouping, a fundamental mechanism in our visual system, significantly influences our interpretation of and interaction with the surrounding world. This study explores the impact of the proximity principle from the perspective of the Two Visual Systems (TVS) model. The TVS model argues that the visual system comprises two distinct streams: the ventral stream, which forms the neural basis for "vision-for-perception," and the dorsal stream, which underlies "vision-for-action." We designed a perceptual grouping task using dot lattices as well as a line-orientation discrimination task. Data were collected using vocal and mouse methods for the vision-for-perception mode, and joystick and pen-paper methods for the vision-for-action mode. Each method, except for vocal, included separate blocks for right and left hands. The proximity data were fitted using exponential and power models. Linear mixed-effects models were used for the statistical analyses. The results revealed similar line-orientation discrimination accuracy across all conditions. The exponential model emerged as the best fit, demonstrating adherence to the Pure Distance Law in both perceptual modes. Sensitivity to the proximity principle was higher in the vision-for-action mode compared to the vision-for-perception. In terms of orientation biases, a strong preference for vertical orientation was observed in the vision-for-perception mode, whereas a noticeable preference toward either of the oblique orientations was detected in the vision-for-action mode. Analysis of free-drawn lines demonstrated an affordance bias in the vision-for-action mode. This suggests a remarkable tendency to perceive organizations within specific orientations that offer more affordances due to the interaction between the body postures and tools.

Revisiting the effect of visual illusions on grasping in left and right handers

Visual illusions have provided compelling evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. For example, when two different-sized objects are placed on opposite ends of the Ponzo illusion, people erroneously perceive the physically smaller object to be bigger than the physically larger one, but when they pick up the objects, their grip aperture reflects the real difference in size between the objects. This and similar findings have been demonstrated almost entirely for the right hand in right handers. The scarce research that has examined right and left-handed subjects in this context, has typically used only small samples. Here, we extended this research with a larger sample size (more than 50 in each group) in a version of the Ponzo illusion that allowed us to disentangle the effects of real and illusory size on action and perception in much more powerful way. We also collected a wide range of kinematic measures to assess possible differences in visuomotor control in left and right handers. The results showed that the dissociation between perception and action persisted for both hands in right handers, but only for the right hand in left handers. The left hand of left handers was sensitive to the illusion. Left handers also showed more variable and slower movements, as well as larger safety margins in both hands. These findings suggest that grasping in left handers may require more cognitive supervision, which could lead to greater sensitivity to visual context , particularly with their dominant left hand.

A review of grasping as the movements of digits in space

It is tempting to describe human reach-to-grasp movements in terms of two, more or less independent visuomotor channels, one relating hand transport to the object’s location and the other relating grip aperture to the object’s size. Our review of experimental work questions this framework for reasons that go beyond noting the dependence between the two channels. Both the lack of effect of size illusions on grip aperture and the finding that the variability in grip aperture does not depend on the object’s size indicate that size information is not used to control grip aperture. An alternative is to describe grip formation as emerging from controlling the movements of the digits in space. Each digit’s trajectory when grasping an object is remarkably similar to its trajectory when moving to tap the same position on its own. The similarity is also evident in the fast responses when the object is displaced. This review develops a new description of the speed-accuracy trade-off for multiple effectors that is applied to grasping. The most direct support for the digit-in-space framework is that prism-induced adaptation of each digit’s tapping movements transfers to that digit’s movements when grasping, leading to changes in grip aperture for adaptation in opposite directions for the two digits. We conclude that although grip aperture and hand transport are convenient variables to describe grasping, treating grasping as movements of the digits in space is a more suitable basis for understanding the neural control of grasping.

The influence of visual target information on the online control of movements

The continuously changing properties of our environment require constant monitoring of our actions and updating of our motor commands based on the task goals. Such updating relies upon our predictions about the sensory consequences of our movement commands, as well as sensory feedback received during movement execution. Here we focus on how visual information about target location is used to update and guide ongoing actions so that the task goal is successfully achieved. We review several studies that have manipulated vision of the target in a variety of ways, ranging from complete removal of visual target information to changes in visual target properties after movement onset to examine how such changes are accounted for during motor execution. We also examined the specific role of a critical neural structure, the parietal cortex, and argue that a fundamental challenge for the future is to understand how visual information about target location is integrated with other streams of information, during movement execution, to estimate the state of the body and the environment in order to ensure optimal motor performance.

Manual asymmetries in the kinematics of a reach-to-grasp action

In the present study, we manipulated the perceived demand of an ecologically valid task to investigate the possible presence of manual asymmetries in a reach-to-grasp action. Participants reached, grasped and sipped from a water glass under low (nearly empty) and high (nearly full) demand conditions. Participants reached to grasp in closed-loop, open-loop and delay visual conditions. Manual asymmetries were found in movement time, peak velocity and maximum grip aperture variability. Consistent with reach-to-point literature: (1) right-handed actions were completed in less time than left-handed actions in visually and memory-guided conditions; (2) right-handed movements were more accurate (i.e., produced more consistent maximum grip apertures) than left-handed movements in visually guided conditions. The results support a theory of left-hemisphere specialization for visual control of action.

Left, right, left, right, eyes to the front! Müller-Lyer bias in grasping is not a function of hand used, hand preferred or visual hemifield, but foveation does matter

We investigated whether the control of movement of the left hand is more likely to involve the use of allocentric information than movements performed with the right hand. Previous studies (Gonzalez et al. in J Neurophys 95:3496–3501, 2006; De Grave et al. in Exp Br Res 193:421–427, 2009) have reported contradictory findings in this respect. In the present study, right-handed participants (N = 12) and left-handed participants (N = 12) made right- and left-handed grasps to foveated objects and peripheral, non-foveated objects that were located in the right or left visual hemifield and embedded within a Müller-Lyer illusion. They were also asked to judge the size of the object by matching their hand aperture to its length. Hand apertures did not show significant differences in illusory bias as a function of hand used, handedness or visual hemifield. However, the illusory effect was significantly larger for perception than for action, and for the non-foveated compared to foveated objects. No significant illusory biases were found for reach movement times. These findings are consistent with the two-visual system model that holds that the use of allocentric information is more prominent in perception than in movement control. We propose that the increased involvement of allocentric information in movements toward peripheral, non-foveated objects may be a consequence of more awkward, less automatized grasps of nonfoveated than foveated objects. The current study does not support the conjecture that the control of left-handed and right-handed grasps is predicated on different sources of information.

Kissing right? On the consistency of the head-turning bias in kissing

The present study investigated the consistency of the head-turning bias in kissing. In particular we addressed what happens if a person who prefers to kiss with the head turned to the right kisses a person who prefers to kiss with the head turned to the left. To this end, participants (N=57) were required to kiss a life-sized doll's head rotated in different orientations that were either compatible or incompatible with the participants' head-turning preference. Additionally, participants handedness, footedness, and eye preference was assessed. Results showed that a higher percentage of participants preferred to kiss with their head turned to the right than to the left. In addition, the right-turners were more consistent in their kissing behaviour than left-turners. That is, with the doll's head rotated in an incompatible direction, right-turners were less likely to switch their head to their non-preferred side. Since no clear relationships between head-turning bias and the other lateral preferences (i.e., handedness, footedness, and eye preference) were discerned, the more consistent head-turning bias among right-turners could not be explained as deriving from a joint pattern of lateral preferences that is stronger among individuals with rightward as compared to individuals with leftward lateral preferences.

Left hand, but not right hand, reaching is sensitive to visual context

Recently, it has been reported that grasping with the left hand is more vulnerable to visual size illusions than grasping with the right hand. The present study investigated whether this increased sensitivity of the left hand for visual context extends to reaching. Left- and right-handed participants reached for targets embedded in two different visual contexts with either left or right hands. Visual context was manipulated by presenting targets either in a blank field or within an array of placeholders marking possible target locations. Regardless of handedness, the presence of placeholders affected left hand, but not right hand, reaching by improving end-point accuracy and reducing movement speed. Furthermore, left hand reaching was more accurate for far than near targets, whereas right hand reaching showed the opposite pattern. We discuss two possible hemispheric lateralization accounts of these findings.