Search

Studies investigating the eVect of visual illusions on saccadic eye movements have provided a wide variety of results. In this study, we test three factors that might explain this variability: the spatial predictability of the stimulus, the duration of the stimulus and the latency of the saccades. Participants made a saccade from one end of a Müller-Lyer Wgure to the other end. By changing the spatial predictability of the stimulus, we Wnd that the illusion has a clear eVect on saccades (16%) when the stimulus is at a highly predictable location. Even stronger eVects of the illusion are found when the stimulus location becomes more unpredictable (19-23%). Conversely, manipulating the duration of the stimulus fails to reveal a clear diVerence in illusion eVect. Finally, by computing the illusion eVect for diVerent saccadic latencies, we Wnd a maximum illusion eVect (about 30%) for very short latencies, which decreases by 7% with every 100 ms latency increase. We conclude that spatial predictability of the stimulus and saccadic latency inXuences the eVect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades. © 2010 Springer-Verlag.

Recently, Gonzalez et al. (J Neurophys 95:3496-3501, 2006) reported that movements with the left hand are more susceptible to visual size illusions than are those with the right hand. We hypothesized that this might be because proprioceptive information about the position of the left hand is less precise. If so, the difference between the hands should become clearer when vision of the hand is removed so that subjects can only rely on proprioception to locate their hand. We tested whether this was so by letting right-handed subjects make open-loop pointing movements within an illusory context with and without vision of their hand. On average, the illusion influenced the left and the right hand to the same extent, irrespective of the visibility of the hand. There were some systematic differences between the hands within certain regions of space, but these were not consistent across subjects. We conclude that there is no fundamental difference between the hands in susceptibility to the Brentano illusion.

In the Brentano version of the Müller-Lyer illusion one part looks longer and the other looks shorter than it really is. We asked participants to make saccadic eye movements along these parts of the figure and between positions on the figure and a position outside the illusion. By showing that saccades from outside the figure are not influenced by the illusion, we demonstrate that the reason that saccades along the figure are influenced is that the incorrectly judged length is used to plan the amplitude of the saccade. This finding contradicts several current views on the use of visual information for action. We conclude that actions are influenced by visual illusions, but that such influences are only apparent if the action is guided by the attribute that is fooled by the illusion. © 2006 Springer-Verlag.

It is not evident how the small effects of the flankers of the Ebbinghaus figure on peak grip aperture (PGA) should be interpreted. One interpretation is that the flankers influence the estimated size, which in turn influences the grasp. If this interpretation is correct, then only the size-dependent aspects of the grasping movement should depend on the spatial positions of the flankers. An alternative interpretation is that the effect on grip aperture is caused by a change in judgement of the required precision, in which case various aspects of the grasping movement could be influenced by the size and position of the flankers. We presented subjects with a display consisting of a central disk surrounded by four large or small flankers. The array of circular flankers could be rotated by 45 degrees . There were two tasks: to reproduce the perceived size of the central disk, and to grasp the central disk. As in other studies, the reproduced size and the PGA were both influenced by the size of the flankers. The effect on reproduced size settings was independent of the flankers' spatial position. Nevertheless, the flankers' position did influence the final grip aperture and the grip orientation at PGA and at movement offset. Because the flankers changed more than only the PGA, we conclude that the effect of the flankers on prehension cannot only be because of misjudgement of the size of the central disk.

Pictorial illusions bias our judgments about certain visual attributes. Such illusions are therefore only expected to influence a task if these attributes are used to perform the task. When pointing to a position, different visual attributes could be used to guide the hand: direction and distance (or length) of the required displacement (vector coding) or the final position (position coding). In this study we used the Brentano illusion (an illusion of length) to determine which attributes are used in pointing. Several conditions were tested in which the visibility of the hand and the stimulus were varied. The illusion influenced movements between two points along the shaft of the figure, but not movements perpendicular to the shaft. When the hand and/or target were invisible during the movement, the influence of the illusion increased. Pointing movements under different visual conditions were based on different relative contributions of position and vector coding. The contribution of vector coding was always rather modest.

Many authors have performed experiments in which subjects grasp objects in illusory surroundings. The vast majority of these studies report that illusions affect the maximum grip aperture less than they affect the perceived size. This observation has frequently been regarded as experimental evidence for separate visual systems for perception and action. In order to make this conclusion, one assumes that the grip aperture is based on a visual estimate of the object's size. We believe that it is not, and that this is why size illusions fail to influence grip aperture. Illusions generally do not affect all aspects of space perception in a consistent way, but mainly affect the perception of specific spatial attributes. This applies not only to object size, but also to other spatial attributes such as position, orientation, displacement, speed, and direction of motion. Whether an illusion influences the execution of a task will therefore depend on which spatial attributes are used rather than on whether the task is perceptual or motor. To evaluate whether illusions affect actions when they influence the relevant spatial attributes we review experimental results on various tasks with inconsistent spatial processing in mind. Doing so shows that many actions are susceptible to visual illusions. We argue that the frequently reported differential effect of illusions on perceptual judgements and goal-directed action is caused by failures to ensure that the same spatial attributes are used in the two tasks. Illusions only affect those aspects of a task that are based on the spatial attributes that are affected by the illusion.