10 years of illusions.

Abstract

A decade ago, S. Aglioti, J. F. X. DeSouza, and M. A. Goodale (1995) published an experiment that has had a big influence on the way that visual information is thought to control human behavior. Their findings have often been simplified as suggesting that action is immune to perceptual illusions. The current authors critically analyze the 4 steps involved in this simplification and argue that research during the last 10 years has shown that the validity of 3 of the 4 steps is doubtful. They conclude that this experiment cannot be regarded as firm support for the 2-visual-systems hypothesis (i.e., that the ventral stream is for perception and the dorsal stream is for visually guided actions).

Bayesian and “Anti-Bayesian” Biases in Sensory Integration for Action and Perception in the Size–Weight Illusion

“…Much of this controversy stems from a series of studies (Aglioti et al 1995;Haffenden et al 2001) that contend that the effects of visual illusions on the perception of object size do not carry over to motor actions. However, the data from these studies and several others (de Grave et al 2005;Franz 2001) show that motor actions can also be substantially affected by perceptual illusions, often to similar extents, leading several authors (de Grave et al 2005;Franz 2001;Smeets and Brenner 2006) to suggest that these visual illusions have similar effects on perception and action. In addition, several aspects of the methodology used in these studies have been called into question, in particular the specificity of the measures used to assess the effect of the illusion on perception and action (Franz 2001;Smeets and Brenner 2006).…”

“…However, although there is clear physiologic evidence for separate streams in the neural processing of visual information, the evidence that a particular visual quality, such as the size of an object, is processed differently for perception and action is still highly controversial. (de Grave et al 2005;Franz 2001;Smeets and Brenner 2006). Much of this controversy stems from a series of studies (Aglioti et al 1995;Haffenden et al 2001) that contend that the effects of visual illusions on the perception of object size do not carry over to motor actions.…”

No Dissociation between Perception and Action in Patient DF When Haptic Feedback is Withdrawn

“…In this model, the ventral system serves object and scene recognition and the dorsal system uses vision to guide actions (Milner and Goodale, 2006). But in recent years, many of the model's claims were challenged (Schenk and McIntosh, 2010;Schenk et al, 2011), most notably, its claim that action is immune to perceptual illusions (Smeets and Brenner, 2006;Franz and Gegenfurtner, 2008), its claim that the dorsal stream does not provide observer-invariant visual information (Konen and Kastner, 2008) and does not make a contribution to perception (Schenk, 2006), the assertion that visual form agnosia and optic ataxia constitute a proper double-dissociation (Pisella et al, 2006), and the assumption that memory-based action is not processed by the dorsal stream (Himmelbach and Karnath, 2005;Himmelbach et al, 2009). In response to this critique, Goodale and colleagues noticed that critics fail to take the evidence from their patient, DF, into account and argued that one cannot dispute the two-visual stream hypothesis unless an alternative account for DF's surprisingly good visuomotor behavior is provided (Milner and Goodale, 2008, Goodale and Milner, 2010, Westwood and Goodale, 2011.…”

Analiza podatności na złudzenia wzrokowe ze względu na zależność od pola i płeć

“…Na podstawie badań za pomocą RFT i EFT wiadomo, że bardziej ulegają złudzeniom osoby FD niż FI (Smeets, Brenner, 2006;Bednarek, 2011). W tym kontekście postawiono hipotezę: (H2) Osoby zależne od pola w ujęciu Witkina bardziej ulegają badanym złudzeniom wzrokowym niż osoby niezależne od pola.…”

“…Osoba niezależna od pola (FI) nie ma problemu z wyodrębnieniem figury z tła, bowiem cechuje ją orientacja aktywno-analityczna, natomiast osoba zależna od pola (FD) spostrzega poszczególne części jako stopione z całością, gdyż typową dla niej jest orientacja pasywnoglobalna. Głównie z powodu globalnej strategii ujmowania danych oraz swoistej sztywności poznawczej (Huteau, 1983), która wiąże się z pasywną organizacją danych w polu widzenia oraz z płytkim, zmysłowym przetwarzaniem informacji, osoby zależne od pola bardziej ulegają złudzeniom wzrokowym niż niezależni od pola (Smeets, Brenner, 2006). Allocentryczne ramy odniesienia (środo-wisko) bardziej oddziałują na percepcję osób zależnych od pola, czyli globalnie przetwarzających stymulację wzrokową, u których ważną rolę pełni mechanizm orientacyjny uwagi (egzogenny), sprzyjający poszerzeniu zakresu przetwarzania informacji kosztem głębokości przetwarzania (Förster, Higgins, 2005, za: Kolań-czyk, 2011.…”