Search

Does recognizing the transformations that gave rise to an object's retinal image contribute to early object recognition? It might, because finding a partially occluded object among similar objects that are not occluded is more difficult than finding an object that has the same retinal image shape without evident occlusion. If this is because the occlusion is recognized as such, we might see something similar for other transformations. We confirmed that it is difficult to find a cookie with a section missing when this was the result of occlusion. It is not more difficult to find a cookie from which a piece has been bitten off than to find one that was baked in a similar shape. On the contrary, the bite marks help detect the bitten cookie. Thus, biting off a part of a cookie has very different effects on visual search than occluding part of it. These findings do not support the idea that observers rapidly and automatically compensate for the ways in which objects' shapes are transformed to give rise to the objects' retinal images. They are easy to explain in terms of detecting characteristic features in the retinal image that such transformations may hide or create.

There is extensive literature debating whether perceived size is used to guide grasping. A possible reason for not using judged size is that using judged positions might lead to more precise movements. As this argument does not hold for small objects and all studies showing an effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping used small objects, we hypothesized that size information is used for small objects but not for large ones. Using a modified diagonal illusion, we obtained an effect of about 10% on perceptual judgements, without an effect on grasping, irrespective of object size. We therefore reject our precision hypothesis. We discuss the results in the framework of grasping as moving digits to positions on an object. We conclude that the reported disagreement on the effect of illusions is because the Ebbinghaus illusion not only affects size, but-unlike most size illusions-also affects perceived positions.

When asked to move their unseen hand-to-visual targets, people exhibit idiosyncratic but reliable visuo-proprioceptive matching errors. Unsurprisingly, vision and proprioception quickly align when these errors are made apparent by providing visual feedback of the position of the hand. However, retention of this learning is limited, such that the original matching errors soon reappear when visual feedback is removed. Several recent motor learning studies have shown that reward feedback can improve retention relative to error feedback. Here, using a visuo-proprioceptive position-matching task, we examined whether binary reward feedback can be effectively exploited to reduce matching errors and, if so, whether this learning leads to improved retention relative to learning based on error feedback. The results show that participants were able to adjust the visuo-proprioceptive mapping with reward feedback, but that the level of retention was similar to that observed when the adjustment was accomplished with error feedback. Therefore, similar to error feedback, reward feedback allows for temporary recalibration, but does not support long-lasting retention of this recalibration.

There are two main anatomically and physiologically defined visual pathways connecting the primary visual cortex with higher visual areas: the ventral and the dorsal pathway. The influential two-visual-systems hypothesis postulates that visual attributes are analyzed differently for different functions: in the dorsal pathway visual information is analyzed to guide actions, whereas in the ventral pathway visual information is analyzed for perceptual judgments. We here show that a person who cannot identify objects due to an extensive bilateral ventral brain lesion is able to judge the velocity at which an object moves. Moreover, both his velocity judgements and his interceptive actions are as susceptible to a motion illusion as those of people without brain lesions. These findings speak in favor of the idea that dorsal structures process information about attributes such as velocity, irrespective of whether such information is used for perceptual judgments or to guide actions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

It has been hypothesised that our actions are less susceptible to visual illusions than our perceptual judgements because similar information is processed for perception and action in separate pathways. We test this hypothesis for subjects intercepting a moving object that appears to move at a different speed than its true speed due to an illusion. The object was a moving Gabor patch: a sinusoidal grating of which the luminance contrast is modulated by a two-dimensional Gaussian. We manipulated the patch's apparent speed by moving the grating relative to the Gaussian. We used separate two-interval forced choice discrimination tasks to determine how moving the grating influenced ten people's judgements of the object's position and velocity while they were fixating. Based on their perceptual judgements, and knowing that our ability to correct for errors that arise from relying on incorrect judgements are limited by a sensorimotor delay of about 100 msec, we predicted the extent to which subjects would tap ahead of or behind similar targets when trying to intercept them at the fixation location. The predicted errors closely matched the actual errors that subjects made when trying to intercept the targets. This finding does not support the two visual streams hypothesis. The results are consistent with the idea that the extent to which an illusion influences an action tells us something about the extent to which the action relies on the percept in question., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The division of labor in visual processing between two anatomically relatively separate cortical pathways, a ventral and a dorsal stream, has been hotly debated in the last decades. One influential model is the What & How pathway model, suggesting that the separation is along ventral perception versus dorsal action, although the degree of functional separation between the two streams is controversial. An implication of this model is that perception and memory-guided movements are highly sensitive to visual contextual illusions, whereas visually-guided movements are largely immune to them. Here, we summarize our recent behavioral and imaging data obtained in single and double saccade paradigms that test this proposal, with a focus on the role of time in visuomotor processing and updating. We describe results showing that presentation time of the illusion affects both saccade amplitude and perceptual judgments in a similar way. We also discuss behavioral findings showing that visuomotor updating is affected by illusory context. Complementary neuroimaging data suggest a neural correlate of these findings in dorsal stream areas. Taken together, these results are suggestive of a dynamic, common visual representation that drives both perception and action, or - at least - that there is no absolute functional specialization of the two visual processing streams., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this chapter, we discuss the way in which visual information is gathered and try to relate this to the task at hand. It is well established that people direct their gaze toward the places at which they expect to be able to gather the most useful information. Studies of gaze during goal-directed actions show that people also make sure to gather information precisely at the moment that they need it. We argue that the eye movements that people make during interception tasks and the precision that people achieve in such tasks suggest that people constantly update their estimates of the details that are needed to successfully hit the target. The updating predominantly consists of replacing the previously acquired information, rather than of adding to such information., (© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)