Skip to main content

Independence of Perception and Action for Grasping Positions

  • Conference paper
Neural Information Processing (ICONIP 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 4984))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the independence between perception and action that has been reported in the previous psychophysical studies. The independence, however, might not be directly investigated because illusion tasks, such as the Ebbinghaus illusion, are used in those studies, although those findings are quite attractive. Thus, the independence may include specific characteristics in the illusion tasks. From this point of view, we focuses on grasping positions when grasping an object, such as a tool, which is used in our daily life. In the first experiment, we investigate the independence of the grasping positions by using the following measurement tasks: 1) a visual-estimation task that the grasping positions are visually estimated, 2) a pinch task that only grasps an object without lifting-up its grasped object and 3) a lift-up task that grasps an object and lifts it up. As a result, both the grasping positions of the visual-estimation and lift-up tasks are significantly different. Thus, these results indicate the independence of perception and action for grasping movement in daily life. In addition, those of the pinch and lift-up tasks are significantly different amazingly, although both the tasks can be considered as an action task. In the second experiment, for the pinch and lift-up tasks, we examine the difference of both the trajectories of the finger tip and moreover the influence of visual feedback for the grasping positions. As a result, we confirmed that the above results are not affected by the visual information perceived from own hand and arm during the movement. Moreover, these results indicate that grasping positions are determined before movement because both the trajectories are different just after movement onset. Finally, our findings are quit attractive because the difference of the grasping positions may be explained based on the Goodale’s hypothesis (“how system” and “what system”).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Haffenden, A.M., Goodale, M.A.: The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10(1), 122–136 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Haffenden, A.M., Goodale, M.A.: Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Res. 40, 1597–1607 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Haffenden, A.M., Schiff, K.C., Goodale, M.A.: The dissociation between perception ad action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Curr. Biol. 11, 177–181 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Danckert, J.A., Nadder, S., Haffenden, A.M., Schiff, K.C., Goodal, M.A.: A temporal analysis of grasping in the ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control. Exp. Bain Res. 144, 275–280 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Flanagan, J.R., Beltzner, M.A.: Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size-weight illusion. Nat. Neurosci., 737–741 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ganel, T., Goodale, M.A.: Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature 426(6967), 664–667 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Westwood, D.A., Goodale, M.A.: A haptic size-contrast illusion affects size perception but not grasping. Exp. Brain Res. 153, 253–259 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Króliczak, G., Heard, P., Goodale, M.A., Gregory, R.L.: Dissociation of perception and action unmasked by the hollow-face illusion. Brain Research 1080(1), 9–16 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L.G.: Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behav. Brain Res., 57–77 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goodale, M.A., Milner, A.D.: Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 15(1), 20–25 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Masumi Ishikawa Kenji Doya Hiroyuki Miyamoto Takeshi Yamakawa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fujita, T., Maeda, Y., Katayama, M. (2008). Independence of Perception and Action for Grasping Positions. In: Ishikawa, M., Doya, K., Miyamoto, H., Yamakawa, T. (eds) Neural Information Processing. ICONIP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4984. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69158-7_105

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69158-7_105

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-69154-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69158-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics