Sind motorische Handlungen auf eine präzise Wahrnehmung angewiesen?

Ebbinghaus figures that deceive the eye do not necessarily deceive the hand

In support of the visual stream dissociation hypothesis, which states that distinct visual streams serve vision-for-perception and vision-for-action, visual size illusions were reported over 20 years ago to ‘deceive the eye but not the hand’. Ever since, inconclusive results and contradictory interpretations have accumulated. Therefore, we investigated the effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on repetitive aiming movements with distinct dynamics. Participants performed a Fitts’ task in which Ebbinghaus figures served as targets. We systematically varied the three parameters which have been shown to influence the perceived size of the Ebbinghaus figure’s target circle, namely the size of the target, its distance to the context circles and the size of the context circles. This paper shows that movement is significantly affected by the context size, but, in contrast to perception, not by the other two parameters. This is especially prominent in the approach phase of the movement towards the target, regardless of the dynamics. To reconcile the findings, we argue that different informational variables are used for size perception and the visual control of movements irrespective of whether certain variables induce (perceptual) illusions.

Quantifying the Ebbinghaus figure effect: target size, context size, and target-context distance determine the presence and direction of the illusion

Over the last 20 years, visual illusions, like the Ebbinghaus figure, have become widespread to investigate functional segregation of the visual system. This segregation reveals itself, so it is claimed, in the insensitivity of movement to optical illusions. This claim, however, faces contradictory results (and interpretations) in the literature. These contradictions may be due to methodological weaknesses in, and differences across studies, some of which may hide a lack of perceptual illusion effects. Indeed, despite the long history of research with the Ebbinghaus figure, standardized configurations to predict the illusion effect are missing. Here, we present a complete geometrical description of the Ebbinghaus figure with three target sizes compatible with Fitts' task. Each trial consisted of a stimulus and an isolated probe. The probe was controlled by the participant's response through a staircase procedure. The participant was asked whether the probe or target appeared bigger. The factors target size, context size, target-context distance, and a control condition resulted in a 3 × 3 × 3+3 factorial design. The results indicate that the illusion magnitude, the perceptual distinctiveness, and the response time depend on the context size, distance, and especially, target size. In 33% of the factor combinations there was no illusion effect. The illusion magnitude ranged from zero to (exceptionally) 10% of the target size. The small (or absent) illusion effects on perception and its possible influence on motor tasks might have been overlooked or misinterpreted in previous studies. Our results provide a basis for the application of the Ebbinghaus figure in psychophysical and motor control studies.