Show Reference: "Visuomotor ‘immunity’ to perceptual illusion: A mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception–action dissociation"

Visuomotor ‘immunity’ to perceptual illusion: A mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception–action dissociation Neuropsychologia, Vol. 44, No. 8. (2006), pp. 1501-1508, doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.010 by Michaela T. Dewar, David P. Carey
@article{dewar-and-carey-2006,
    abstract = {Recent findings of visuomotor immunity to perceptual illusions have been attributed to a perception–action division of labour within two anatomically segregated streams in the visual cortex. However, critics argue that such experimental findings are not valid and have suggested that the perception–action dissociations can be explained away by differential attentional/processing demands, rather than a functional dissociation in the neurologically intact brain: perceptual tasks require processing of the entire illusion display while visuomotor tasks only require processing the target that is acted upon. The present study examined whether grasping of the {M\"{u}ller–Lyer} display would remain immune to the illusion when the task required the direction of attention or a related resource towards both {M\"{u}ller–Lyer} shafts. Twelve participants were required to match and grasp two {M\"{u}ller–Lyer} shafts bimanually (i.e. one with each hand). It was found that bimanual grasping was not significantly affected by the illusion, while there was a highly significant illusion effect on perceptual estimation by matching. Furthermore, it was established that this dissociation did not result from a differing baseline rate of change in manual estimation and grasping aperture to a change in physical object size. These findings provide further support for the postulated perception–action dissociation and fail to uphold the idea that grasping 'immunity' to the {M\"{u}ller–Lyer} illusions merely represents an experimental artefact.},
    author = {Dewar, Michaela T. and Carey, David P.},
    doi = {10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.010},
    issn = {00283932},
    journal = {Neuropsychologia},
    keywords = {cue-combination, grasping, illusions},
    number = {8},
    pages = {1501--1508},
    posted-at = {2013-07-05 08:18:37},
    priority = {2},
    title = {Visuomotor 'immunity' to perceptual illusion: A mismatch of attentional demands cannot explain the perception–action dissociation},
    url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.010},
    volume = {44},
    year = {2006}
}

See the CiteULike entry for more info, PDF links, BibTex etc.

Foster et al. challenge the methodology used in a previous study by Dewar and Carey which supports the perception and action model of visual processing due to Goodale and Milner.

They do that by changing the closed visual-action loop in Dewar and Carey's study into an open one by removing visual feedback at motion onset. The result is that the effect of the illusion is there for grasping (which it wasn't in the closed-loop condition) but not (as strongly) for manual object size estimation.

Foster et al. argue that this suggests that the effect found in Dewar and Carey's study is due to continuous visual feedback.