The influence of the Sander parallelogram illusion and early, middle and late vision on goal-directed reaching and grasping

Coming to grips with reality: Real grasps, but not pantomimed grasps, resist a simultaneous tilt illusion

Investigations of grasping real, 3D objects subjected to illusory effects from a pictorial background often choose in-flight grasp aperture as the primary variable to test the hypothesis that the visuomotor system resists the illusion. Here we test an equally important feature of grasps that has received less attention: in-flight grasp orientation. The current study tested a variant of the simultaneous tilt illusion using a mirror-apparatus to manipulate the availability of haptic feedback. Participants performed grasps with haptic feedback (real grasps) and without it (pantomime grasps), reaching for the reflection of a real, 3D bar atop a background grating that induced a 1.1° bias in the perceived orientation of the bar in a separate sample of participants. Analysis of the hand's in-flight grasp orientation at early, late, and end stages of the reach showed that at no point were the real grasps biased by the illusion. In contrast, pantomimed grasps were affected by the illusion at the late and end stages of the reach. At each stage, the effect on the real grasps was significantly weaker than the effect of the illusion as measured by the mean point of subjective equality (PSE) in a two-alternative forced-choice task. In contrast, the effect on the pantomime grasps was statistically indistinguishable from the mean PSE at all three stages of the reach. These findings reinforce the idea that in-flight grasp orientation, like grasp aperture to pictorial illusions of target size, is refractory to pictorial backgrounds that bias perceived orientation.

Priming of the Sander Parallelogram illusion separates perception from action

The two-visual stream hypothesis posits that the dorsal stream is less susceptible than the ventral stream to the effects of illusions and visual priming. While previous studies have separately examined these perceptual manipulations, the present study combined the effects of a visual illusion and priming to examine the possibility of dorsally guided actions being susceptible to the perceptual stimuli due to interactions between the two streams. Thirty-four participants were primed with a 'long' or 'short' version of the Sander Parallelogram illusion and were asked to either reach out and grasp or manually estimate the length of a rod placed on a version of the illusion that was on some trials the same as the prime (congruent) and on other trials was the inverse (incongruent). Due to the context-focused nature of ventral processing, we predicted that estimations would be more susceptible to the effects of the illusion and priming than grasps. Results showed that while participants' manual estimations were susceptible to both priming and the illusion, the grasps were only affected by the illusion, not by priming. The influence of the illusion on grip aperture was greater during manual estimations than it was during grasping. These findings support the notion that the functionally distinct dorsal and ventral streams interact under the current experimental paradigm. Outcomes of the study help better understand the nature of stimuli that promote interactions between the dorsal and ventral streams.

The Role of Haptic Expectations in Reaching to Grasp: From Pantomime to Natural Grasps and Back Again

When we reach to pick up an object, our actions are effortlessly informed by the object's spatial information, the position of our limbs, stored knowledge of the object's material properties, and what we want to do with the object. A substantial body of evidence suggests that grasps are under the control of "automatic, unconscious" sensorimotor modules housed in the "dorsal stream" of the posterior parietal cortex. Visual online feedback has a strong effect on the hand's in-flight grasp aperture. Previous work of ours exploited this effect to show that grasps are refractory to cued expectations for visual feedback. Nonetheless, when we reach out to pretend to grasp an object (pantomime grasp), our actions are performed with greater cognitive effort and they engage structures outside of the dorsal stream, including the ventral stream. Here we ask whether our previous finding would extend to cued expectations for haptic feedback. Our method involved a mirror apparatus that allowed participants to see a "virtual" target cylinder as a reflection in the mirror at the start of all trials. On "haptic feedback" trials, participants reached behind the mirror to grasp a size-matched cylinder, spatially coincident with the virtual one. On "no-haptic feedback" trials, participants reached behind the mirror and grasped into "thin air" because no cylinder was present. To manipulate haptic expectation, we organized the haptic conditions into blocked, alternating, and randomized schedules with and without verbal cues about the availability of haptic feedback. Replicating earlier work, we found the strongest haptic effects with the blocked schedules and the weakest effects in the randomized uncued schedule. Crucially, the haptic effects in the cued randomized schedule was intermediate. An analysis of the influence of the upcoming and immediately preceding haptic feedback condition in the cued and uncued random schedules showed that cuing the upcoming haptic condition shifted the haptic influence on grip aperture from the immediately preceding trial to the upcoming trial. These findings indicate that, unlike cues to the availability of visual feedback, participants take advantage of cues to the availability of haptic feedback, flexibly engaging pantomime, and natural modes of grasping to optimize the movement.