Hemispheric asymmetry in a dissociation between the visuomotor and visuoperceptual streams

Radoeva, Petya D.; Cohen, Joseph D.; Corballis, Paul M.; Lukovits, Timothy G.; Koleva, Svetlinka G.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.02.005

Cited by 25 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, also Gonzalez et al (2006) would not predict a diVerence in results due to the task, as pointing and grasping are both considered to be motor tasks, controlled by the dorsal stream. In line with our results, Radoeva et al (2005) found no diVerence in eVect of the Müller-Lyer illusion between grasping with the left and grasping with the right hand in their control subjects.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…However, Gentilucci et al (1997) did not Wnd diVerent eVects of the Muller-Lyer illusion on pointing between the left and the right hand when the target was visible during the movement. In addition, the control subjects of Radoeva et al (2005) showed no diVerence in eVect of the Müller-Lyer illusion between the left and the right hand when grasping in the light. Except for the study of Gonzalez et al (2006), all studies investigating illusion eVects on the left and the right hand reported no diVerence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Brentano illusion influences goal-directed movements of the left and right hand to the same extent

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, Gonzalez et al. (J Neurophys 95:3496-3501, 2006) reported that movements with the left hand are more susceptible to visual size illusions than are those with the right hand. We hypothesized that this might be because proprioceptive information about the position of the left hand is less precise. If so, the diVerence between the hands should become clearer when vision of the hand is removed so that subjects can only rely on proprioception to locate their hand. We tested whether this was so by letting right-handed subjects make open-loop pointing movements within an illusory context with and without vision of their hand. On average, the illusion inXuenced the left and the right hand to the same extent, irrespective of the visibility of the hand. There were some systematic diVerences between the hands within certain regions of space, but these were not consistent across subjects. We conclude that there is no fundamental diVerence between the hands in susceptibility to the Brentano illusion.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

The Brentano illusion influences goal-directed movements of the left and right hand to the same extent

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings are consistent with research demonstrating that actions carried out automatically (with little or no cognitive control) are susceptible to facilitative priming (Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschläger, & Prinz, 2000;Craighero, Bello, Fadiga, & Rizzolatti, 2002;Craighero, Fadiga, Rizzolatti, & Umiltà, 1998. Our findings, together with previous research, indicate that partial repetition benefits and costs depend on whether the current action is under more automatic or under more cognitive control (Fournier, Behmer, & Stubblefield, 2014a) and on the degree of feature overlap between the current action and the action plan retained in WM (Hommel et al, 2001;Proctor et al, 1995;Stoet & Hommel, 1999;Thomaschke et al, 2012a). A partial repetition cost will occur when the current action requires WM and reactivates the other plan maintained in WM that has similar features, leading to code confusion and selection competition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…First, they suggested that the degree of cognitive and automatic control may be influenced by the hemisphere controlling the reach. This account is consistent with evidence that the execution of reach and grasp actions controlled by the right hemisphere (left-hand actions) relies more on cognitive control mechanisms, whereas those controlled by the left hemisphere (right-hand actions) rely more on automatic mechanisms (Elliot & Chua, 1996;Fisk & Goodale, 1988;Gonzalez et al, 2006;Radoeva, Cohen, Corballis, Lukovits, & Koleva, 2005;Todor & Cisneros, 1985). Thus, spatially compatible reaches with the right hand, but not with the left hand, can be executed automatically, and hence should not lead to a partial repetition cost-but could lead to a benefit.…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…That is, left or right hand reach responses should be specified directly by the spatial stimulus (left or right), without the involvement of WM (direct route; de Jong et al, 1994;Eimer, 1995;Eimer et al, 1995;Kornblum & Lee, 1995;Proctor, Lu, Wang, & Dutta, 1995;Simon, 1990;Tagliabue et al, 2000). Wiediger and Fournier (2008) concluded that spatially compatible reaches 17°to the left of body midline were not executed automatically by right-handed participants in their study, but reaches 17°to the right of body midline were.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Action plans can interact to hinder or facilitate reach performance

Fournier

Wiediger

Taddese

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executing a reach action can be delayed while retaining another action in working memory (WM) if the two action plans partly overlap rather than do not overlap. This delay (partial repetition cost) occurs when reach responses are under cognitive control. In this study, we investigated whether facilitation (a partial repetition benefit) occurs when reach responses are automatic. We also examined whether the hemisphere controlling the limb or selection of the preferred limb (based on a free-reach task) influences reach performance when the actions partly overlap. Leftand right-handers reached to different stimulus locations to the left and right of body midline with their ipsilateral hand while maintaining an action plan in WM that required the same or the different hand. The results showed a partial repetition benefit for spatially compatible reaches to left and right stimulus locations far from the body midline, but not for those near the body midline. Also, no partial repetition cost was found at any of the stimulus-reach locations. This indicates that automatic reach responses that partly overlap with an action plan maintained in WM are not delayed, but instead can be facilitated (partial repetition benefit). The roles of hemisphere and reach-hand preference in action control and the importance of the degree of feature overlap in obtaining a partial repetition benefit (and cost) are discussed.

show abstract

Left, right, left, right, eyes to the front! Müller-Lyer bias in grasping is not a function of hand used, hand preferred or visual hemifield, but foveation does matter

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether the control of movement of the left hand is more likely to involve the use of allocentric information than movements performed with the right hand. Previous studies (Gonzalez et al. in J Neurophys 95:3496–3501, 2006; De Grave et al. in Exp Br Res 193:421–427, 2009) have reported contradictory findings in this respect. In the present study, right-handed participants (N = 12) and left-handed participants (N = 12) made right- and left-handed grasps to foveated objects and peripheral, non-foveated objects that were located in the right or left visual hemifield and embedded within a Müller-Lyer illusion. They were also asked to judge the size of the object by matching their hand aperture to its length. Hand apertures did not show significant differences in illusory bias as a function of hand used, handedness or visual hemifield. However, the illusory effect was significantly larger for perception than for action, and for the non-foveated compared to foveated objects. No significant illusory biases were found for reach movement times. These findings are consistent with the two-visual system model that holds that the use of allocentric information is more prominent in perception than in movement control. We propose that the increased involvement of allocentric information in movements toward peripheral, non-foveated objects may be a consequence of more awkward, less automatized grasps of nonfoveated than foveated objects. The current study does not support the conjecture that the control of left-handed and right-handed grasps is predicated on different sources of information.

show abstract

Hemispheric asymmetry in a dissociation between the visuomotor and visuoperceptual streams

Cited by 25 publications

References 47 publications

The Brentano illusion influences goal-directed movements of the left and right hand to the same extent

The Brentano illusion influences goal-directed movements of the left and right hand to the same extent

Action plans can interact to hinder or facilitate reach performance

Left, right, left, right, eyes to the front! Müller-Lyer bias in grasping is not a function of hand used, hand preferred or visual hemifield, but foveation does matter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About