Visual illusions modify object size estimates for prospective action judgements

Incompatibility Influences Cursor Placement When Pointing to Images of Cups

OBJECTIVE

As images are used within graphical user interfaces to signify menu selection, it is important to understand how image properties can influence cursor placement online.

BACKGROUND

Objects have multiple dimensions that create potential ambiguity and Stroop-like confusions for the operator if a previously habitual response conflicts with the required response.

METHODS

To examine the impact of compatibility and other contextual factors, 41 participants used a computer Mouse or touch screen to place the cursor upon images of full or empty cups that varied in size, and direction of handle.

RESULTS

Cursor placements took longer using the Mouse than touch screen. Although participants were placing the cursor on images, the size of the cup, whether it was empty or full, and the handle orientation interacted in their effects upon response duration and cursor placement. The effects of cup size reversed for empty cups or those with incompatible handles.

CONCLUSION

Context can influence cursor placement. Perceived spillability influenced precision requirements, and the cup handle can serve as target or a flanking distractor.

APPLICATION

Image content can influence screen hotspots. As performance can change with cup spillability, this bodes well for attempts to detect intent from cursor trajectories.

Horizontal target size perturbations during grasping movements are described by subsequent size perception and saccade amplitude

Perception and action are essential in our day-to-day interactions with the environment. Despite the dual-stream theory of action and perception, it is now accepted that action and perception processes interact with each other. However, little is known about the impact of unpredicted changes of target size during grasping actions on perception. We assessed whether size perception and saccade amplitude were affected before and after grasping a target that changed its horizontal size during the action execution under the presence or absence of tactile feedback. We have tested twenty-one participants in 4 blocks of 30 trials. Blocks were divided into two experimental tactile feedback paradigms: tactile and non-tactile. Trials consisted of 3 sequential phases: pre-grasping size perception, grasping, and post-grasping size perception. During pre- and post-phases, participants executed a saccade towards a horizontal bar and performed a manual size estimation of the bar size. During grasping phase, participants were asked to execute a saccade towards the bar and to make a grasping action towards the screen. While grasping, 3 horizontal size perturbation conditions were applied: non-perturbation, shortening, and lengthening. 30% of the trials presented perturbation, meaning a symmetrically shortened or lengthened by 33% of the original size. Participants’ hand and eye positions were assessed by a motion capture system and a mobile eye-tracker, respectively. After grasping, in both tactile and non-tactile feedback paradigms, size estimation was significantly reduced in lengthening (p = 0.002) and non-perturbation (p<0.001), whereas shortening did not induce significant adjustments (p = 0.86). After grasping, saccade amplitude became significantly longer in shortening (p<0.001) and significantly shorter in lengthening (p<0.001). Non-perturbation condition did not display adjustments (p = 0.95). Tactile feedback did not generate changes in the collected perceptual responses, but horizontal size perturbations did so, suggesting that all relevant target information used in the movement can be extracted from the post-action target perception.

Selective interference of hand posture with grasping capability estimation

Previous studies have shown that judgments about how one would perform an action are affected by the current body posture. Hence, judging one's capability to grasp an object between index and thumb is influenced by their aperture at the time of the judgment. This finding can be explained by a modification of the internal representation of one's hand through the effect of sensorimotor input. Alternatively, the influence of grip aperture might be mediated by a response congruency effect, so that a "less" vs. "more" open grip would bias the judgment toward a "less" vs. "more" capable response. To specify the role of sensorimotor input in prospective action judgments, we asked participants to estimate their capability to grasp circles between index and thumb while performing a secondary task that requires them to squeeze a ball with these two fingers (precision grip) or with a different hand configuration (palm grip). Experiment 1 showed that participants underestimated their grasping capability when the squeezing task involved the same grip as the judged action (precision grip) and their estimates were bound to the relative size of objects as revealed by size-contrast illusions (Ebbinghaus). Experiment 2 showed that the grip reduction caused by the squeezing task also interfered with the discrimination of large numbers in magnitude judgments, but this incongruency effect was only observed for the palm grip. The dissociated effects of the two grips in graspability and numerical judgments indicate that sensorimotor input may affect the perceived ability to grasp objects, independently of response congruency, by modifying the representation of the hand in action.

Grasp aperture corrections in reach-to-grasp movements do not reliably alter size perception

When grasping an object, the opening between the fingertips (grip aperture) scales with the size of the object. If an object changes in size, the grip aperture has to be corrected. In this study, it was investigated whether such corrections would influence the perceived size of objects. The grasping plan was manipulated with a preview of the object, after which participants initiated their reaching movement without vision. In a minority of the grasps, the object changed in size after the preview and participants had to adjust their grasping movement. Visual feedback was manipulated in two experiments. In experiment 1, vision was restored during reach and both visual and haptic information was available to correct the grasp and lift the object. In experiment 2, no visual information was provided during the movement and grasps could only be corrected using haptic information. Participants made reach-to-grasp movements towards two objects and compared these in size. Results showed that participants adjusted their grasp to a change in object size from preview to grasped object in both experiments. However, a change in object size did not bias the perception of object size or alter discrimination performance. In experiment 2, a small perceptual bias was found when objects changed from large to small. However, this bias was much smaller than the difference that could be discriminated and could not be considered meaningful. Therefore, it can be concluded that the planning and execution of reach-to-grasp movements do not reliably affect the perception of object size.