Abstract
In their Perception–Action Model (PAM), Goodale and Milner (1992) proposed functionally independent and encapsulated processing of visual information for action and perception. In this context, they postulated that visual input for action is processed in an automatized and analytic manner, which renders visuomotor behaviour immune to perceptual interferences or multitasking costs due to sharing of cognitive resources. Here, we investigate the well-known Garner Interference effect under dual- and single-task conditions in its classic perceptual form as well as in grasping. Garner Interference arises when stimuli are classified along a relevant dimension (e.g., their length), while another irrelevant dimension (e.g., their width) has to be ignored. In the present study, participants were presented with differently sized rectangular objects and either grasped them or classified them as long or short via button presses. We found classical Garner Interference effects in perception as expressed in prolonged reaction times when variations occurred also in the irrelevant object dimension. While reaction times during grasping were not susceptible to Garner Interference, effects were observed in a number of measures that reflect grasping accuracy (i.e., poorer adjustment of grip aperture to object size, prolonged adjustment times, and increased variability of the maximum hand opening when irrelevant object dimensions were varied). In addition, multitasking costs occurred in both perception and action tasks. Thus, our findings challenge the assumption of automaticity in visuomotor behaviour as proposed by the PAM.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5(6), 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(95)00133-3.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436.
Brown, L. E., Halpert, B. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2005). Peripheral vision for perception and action. Experimental Brain Research, 165(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2285-y.
Culham, J. C., Danckert, S. L., Souza, J. F. X. D., Gati, J. S., Menon, R. S., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visually guided grasping produces fMRI activation in dorsal but not ventral stream brain areas. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1591-5.
Eloka, O., Feuerhake, F., Janczyk, M., & Franz, V. H. (2015). Garner-Interference in left-handed awkward grasping. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(4), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0585-1.
Franz, V. (2004). The optotrak toolbox. Retrieved April. 15, 2010.
Freud, E., Ganel, T., Avidan, G., & Gilaie-Dotan, S. (2016). Functional dissociation between action and perception of object shape in developmental visual object agnosia. Cortex, 76, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.12.006.
Ganel, T., Chajut, E., & Algom, D. (2008). Visual coding for action violates fundamental psychophysical principles. Current Biology, 18(14), R599–R601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.052.
Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature, 426(6967), 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02156.
Ganel, T., & Goodale, M. A. (2014). Variability-based Garner interference for perceptual estimations but not for grasping. Exp Brain Res, 232(6), 1751–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3867-3.
Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90006-2.
Garner, W. R. (1978). Selective attention to attributes and to stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.107.3.287.
Göhringer, F., Löhr-Limpens, M., & Schenk, T. (2018). The visual guidance of action is not insulated from cognitive interference: a multitasking study on obstacle-avoidance and bisection. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.007.
Goodale, M. A., Meenan, J. P., Bülthoff, H. H., Nicolle, D. A., Murphy, K. J., & Racicot, C. I. (1994). Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension. Current Biology, 4(7), 604–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00132-9.
Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.
Goodale, M. A., Milner, A. D., Jakobson, L. S., & Carey, D. P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349(6305), 154–156. https://doi.org/10.1038/349154a0.
Goodale, M. A., & Murphy, K. (1997). Action and perception in the visual periphery. Experimental Brain Research Series, 25, 447–462.
Hesse, C., & Deubel, H. (2011). Efficient grasping requires attentional resources. Vision Research, 51(11), 1223–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.03.014.
Hesse, C., & Franz, V. H. (2009a). Corrective processes in grasping after perturbations of object size. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.41.3.253-273.
Hesse, C., & Franz, V. H. (2009b). Memory mechanisms in grasping. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1532–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.012.
Hesse, C., & Schenk, T. (2013). Findings from the Garner-paradigm do not support the “how” versus “what” distinction in the visual brain. Behavioural Brain Research, 239, 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.11.007.
Hesse, C., Schenk, T., & Deubel, H. (2012). Attention is needed for action control: further evidence from grasping. Vision Research, 71, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2012.08.014.
Hu, Y., Eagleson, R., & Goodale, M. A. (1999). The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 126(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050720.
Janczyk, M., Franz, V. H., & Kunde, W. (2010). Grasping for parsimony: Do some motor actions escape dorsal processing? Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3405–3415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.034.
Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Does dorsal processing require central capacity? More evidence from the PRP paradigm. Experimental Brain Research, 203(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2211-9.
Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2012). Visual processing for action resists similarity of relevant and irrelevant object features. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 412–417. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0238-6.
Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2016). Garner-interference in skilled right-handed grasping is possible. Motor Control, 20(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1123/mc.2015-0009.
Jeannerod, M. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1984.10735319.
Karnath, H. O., Ruter, J., Mandler, A., & Himmelbach, M. (2009). The anatomy of object recognition–visual form agnosia caused by medial occipitotemporal stroke. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(18), 5854–5862. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5192-08.2009.
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., Pelli, D., Ingling, A., Murray, R., & Broussard, C. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36(14), 1.
Kopiske, K. K., Bruno, N., Hesse, C., Schenk, T., & Franz, V. H. (2016). The functional subdivision of the visual brain: Is there a real illusion effect on action? A multi-lab replication study. Cortex, 79, 130–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.020.
Kunde, W., Landgraf, F., Paelecke, M., & Kiesel, A. (2007). Dorsal and ventral processing under dual-task conditions. Psychological Science 18(2), 100–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01855.x
Liu, G., Chua, R., & Enns, J. T. (2008). Attention for perception and action: task interference for action planning, but not for online control. Experimental Brain Research, 185(4), 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1196-5.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2006). The visual brain in action (2nd edn.). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.005.
Pashler, H. (1989). Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 469–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90016-9.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.
Sandoval Similä, S., & McIntosh, R. D. (2015). Look where you’re going! Perceptual attention constrains the online guidance of action. Vision Research, 110, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.06.002.
Schenk, T. (2006). An allocentric rather than perceptual deficit in patient D.F. Nature Neuroscience, 9(11), 1369–1370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1784.
Schenk, T. (2010). Visuomotor robustness is based on integration not segregation. Vision Research, 50(24), 2627–2632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.013.
Schenk, T. (2012). No dissociation between perception and action in patient DF when haptic feedback is withdrawn. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(6), 2013–2017. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3413-11.2012.
Schenk, T., Franz, V., & Bruno, N. (2011). Vision-for-perception and vision-for-action: which model is compatible with the available psychophysical and neuropsychological data? Vision Research, 51(8), 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.02.003.
Schenk, T., & Hesse, C. (2018). Do we have distinct systems for immediate and delayed actions? A selective review on the role of visual memory in action. Cortex, 98, 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.014.
Schenk, T., Utz, K. S., & Hesse, C. (2017). Violations of Weber’s law tell us more about methodological challenges in sensorimotor research than about the neural correlates of visual behaviour. Vision Research, 140, 140–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2017.05.017.
Singhal, A., Culham, J. C., Chinellato, E., & Goodale, M. A. (2007). Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. Journal of Vision, 7(5), 5 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.5.5.
Smeets, J. B., & Brenner, E. (1999). A new view on grasping. Motor Control, 3(3), 237–271.
Utz, K. S., Hesse, C., Aschenneller, N., & Schenk, T. (2015). Biomechanical factors may explain why grasping violates Weber’s law. Vision Research, 111(Pt A), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.03.021.
Westwood, D. A., Danckert, J., Servos, P., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). Grasping two-dimensional images and three-dimensional objects in visual-form agnosia. Experimental Brain Research, 144(2), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-002-1068-y.
Funding
This work was supported by the DFG Priority Program SPP 1772 concerning multitasking “Human performance under multiple cognitive task requirements: From basic mechanisms to optimized task scheduling” (DFG/SCHE 735/2-1) awarded to Thomas Schenk. We would like to thank Laura Koroknai for her assistance with data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Löhr-Limpens, M., Göhringer, F., Schenk, T. et al. Grasping and perception are both affected by irrelevant information and secondary tasks: new evidence from the Garner paradigm. Psychological Research 84, 1269–1283 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01151-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01151-z