MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011510505 · doi:10.1167/5.8.354

Perceptual illusions affect visually-guided actions with the non-dominant but not with the dominant hand

2010· article· en· W2011510505 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia L. R. Gonzalez, Tzvi Ganel, Melvyn A. Goodale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)IllusionPerceptionCognitive psychologyPsychologyOptical illusionCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The visuomotor system that controls real-time target-directed movements is remarkably resistant to a wide range of perceptual illusions. The fact that the visual control of action is refractory to visual illusions has been used as evidence to suggest that vision-for-action and vision-for-perception are functionally and neurally dissociable. Nevertheless, one might expect that more deliberate and less-practiced actions, which would involve more cognitive control, might be susceptible to perceptual illusions. To test this idea, we asked subjects to reach out and grasp simple objects with their non-dominant (left) hand and compared their performance to that of their dominant (right) hand in the context of two pictorial illusions. In Experiment 1, we found that even though grasping movements using the dominant hand were completely unaffected by the Ponzo illusion, the illusion had a significant effect on grasping movements with the non-dominant hand. In Experiment 2, we replicated these results using the Ebbinghaus illusion. In other words, in both experiments, grip aperture was scaled to the real size of the target when participants used their right hand but to the apparent (illusory) size of target when they used their left hand. This dissociation was accompanied by longer movement times, as well as by greater variability in movement trajectories in the left hand. These results indicate that qualitative differences exist between the visual control of actions that are performed by the dominant and non-dominant hands. The fact that actions with the right hand but not with the left are resistant to perceptual illusions may reflect a basic distinction in the neural substrates of the visual control of automatic and controlled movements. In addition, our findings suggest that one must be careful in the selection of actions when testing predictions about possible dissociations between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207