PubMed · 11700535
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J M Loomis. 2001-11-08. Looking down is looking up.. https://doi.org/10.1038/35102648
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Humans use multiple sources of sensory information to estimate environmental properties. For example, the eyes and hands both provide relevant information about an object's shape. The eyes estimate shape using binocular disparity, perspective projection, etc. The hands supply haptic shape information by means of tactile and proprioceptive cues. Combining information across cues can improve estimation of object properties but may come at a cost: loss of single-cue information. We report that single-cue information is indeed lost when cues from within the same sensory modality (disparity and texture gradients in vision) are combined, but not when different modalities (vision and haptics) are combined.
Many authors have performed experiments in which subjects grasp objects in illusory surroundings. The vast majority of these studies report that illusions affect the maximum grip aperture less than they affect the perceived size. This observation has frequently been regarded as experimental evidence for separate visual systems for perception and action. In order to make this conclusion, one assumes that the grip aperture is based on a visual estimate of the object's size. We believe that it is not, and that this is why size illusions fail to influence grip aperture. Illusions generally do not affect all aspects of space perception in a consistent way, but mainly affect the perception of specific spatial attributes. This applies not only to object size, but also to other spatial attributes such as position, orientation, displacement, speed, and direction of motion. Whether an illusion influences the execution of a task will therefore depend on which spatial attributes are used rather than on whether the task is perceptual or motor. To evaluate whether illusions affect actions when they influence the relevant spatial attributes we review experimental results on various tasks with inconsistent spatial processing in mind. Doing so shows that many actions are susceptible to visual illusions. We argue that the frequently reported differential effect of illusions on perceptual judgements and goal-directed action is caused by failures to ensure that the same spatial attributes are used in the two tasks. Illusions only affect those aspects of a task that are based on the spatial attributes that are affected by the illusion.
Organisms are expected to be sensitive to cues of genetic relatedness when making decisions about social behaviour. Relatedness can be assessed in several ways, one of which is phenotype matching: the assessment of similarity between others' traits and either one's own traits or those of known relatives. One candidate cue of relatedness in humans is facial resemblance. Here, I report the effects of an experimental manipulation of facial resemblance in a two-person sequential trust game. Subjects were shown faces of ostensible playing partners manipulated to resemble either themselves or an unknown person. Resemblance to the subject's own face raised the incidence of trusting a partner, but had no effect on the incidence of selfish betrayals of the partner's trust. Control subjects playing with identical pictures failed to show such an effect. In a second experiment, resemblance of the playing partner to a familiar (famous) person had no effect on either trusting or betrayals of trust.