The present study examined whether the learned pictorial depth cue of “familiar size” could be used to plan a reaching and grasping movement in the absence of binocular vision. Sixteen right-handed subjects were presented with two different arrays, under monocular and binocular viewing conditions, in which a range of different “grasp-sized” spheres that were lit from within could be presented in an otherwise darkened environment. In the “familiar-size” presentation array, only one “standard” sized sphere was presented, which gave subjects an opportunity to learn the relationship between the standard sphere's retinal image size and its distance. In the “multiple” spheres presentation array, subjects could not learn such a relationship because on any one trial, one of four different sphere sizes could be present. In a second experiment, the effects of this paradigm on six subjects' perceptual reports of distance were examined by having subjects slide their index fingers apart along a horizontal rod to indicate the estimated distance of the spheres. When familiar size could not be used as a cue to distance, subjects produced more on-line corrections in their reaching and grasping movements to the standard-sized spheres—but only under monocular viewing conditions. It appears that subjects are able to exploit the learned relationship between an object's distance and its projected retinal image size to help program and control reaching and grasping movements when binocular vision is not available. Although the influence of familiar size on subjects' perceptual estimates is less clear, it is clear that subjects' perceptual estimates show poor absolute scaling for distance. This result further supports the notion that under normal viewing conditions the visuomotor system uses binocular information to program and control manual prehension, but is able to use pictorial information when binocular vision is denied.

We carried out three experiments designed to compare the effects of relative and absolute size on manual prehension and manual estimates of perceived size. In each experiment, right-handed subjects were presented with two different-sized 3-D objects in a virtual display and were instructed to pick up or estimate the size of one of them. In Experiment 1, subjects were requested to pick up the smaller one of two virtual objects under one condition and the larger one under the other condition. In fact, the target object was identical on all trials; it was simply paired with a smaller object on some trials and a larger object on others. To provide veridical haptic feedback, a real object was positioned beneath a mirror at the same location as the virtual target object. In Experiment 2, one of the virtual objects was marked with a red dot on its top surface. From trial to trial, the marked object was paired with a larger, smaller, or same-sized object. Subjects were instructed to always pick up the marked object on each trial. In both Experiment 1 and 2, half the subjects were tested in delayed grasping with a 5-sec delay between viewing the objects and initiating the grasp, and half in real-time grasping without a delay. Using the same display of virtual objects as in Experiment 2, subjects in Experiment 3 were requested to estimate the size of the marked object using their index finger and thumb (i.e., they showed us how big the object looked to them). After estimating the target object's size, they picked it up. All subjects gave their estimates either immediately or after a delay. Recording of hand movements revealed that when subjects in Experiments 1 and 2 picked up the target object in real time, their grip aperture in flight was not significantly affected whether the object was accompanied by a larger object or a smaller one. When subjects picked up the target object after a delay, however, their grip aperture in flight was larger when the target object was accompanied by a smaller object than when it was accompanied by a larger object. A similar size-contrast effect was also observed in Experiment 3 in which subjects gave manual estimates of the perceived size of the target object. This perceptual effect was observed both when the estimates were given immediately and when they were given after a 5-sec delay. These results suggest that normal (real-time) visuomotor control relies on absolute metrics, whereas delayed grasping utilizes the same relative metrics used by conscious perception.

We have previously reported that a patient (DF) with visual form agnosia shows accurate guidance of hand and finger movements with respect to the size, orientation, and shape of the objects to which her movements are directed. Despite this, she is unable to indicate any knowledge about these object properties. In the present study, we investigated the extent to which DF is able to use visual shape or pattern to guide her hand movements. In the first experiment, we found that when presented with a stimulus aperture cut in the shape of the letter T, DF was able to guide a T-shaped form into it on about half of the trials, across a range of different stimulus orientations. On the remaining trials, her responses were almost always perpendicular to the correct Orientation. Thus, the visual information guiding the rotation of DF's hand appears to be limited to a single orientation. In other words, the visuomotor transformations mediating her hand rotation appear to be unable to combine the orientations of the stem and the top of the T, although they are sensitive to the orientation of the element(s) that comprise the T. In a second experiment, we examined her ability to use different sources of visual information to guide her hand rotation. In this experiment, DF was required to guide the leading edge of a hand-held card onto a rectangular target positioned at dHerent orientations on a flat surface. Here the orientation of her hand was determined primarily by the predominant orientation of the luminance edge elements present in the stimulus, rather than by information about orientation that was conveyed by nonluminance boundaries. Little evidence was found for an ability to use contour boundaries defined by Gestalt principles of grouping (good continuation or similarity) or “nonaccidental” image properties (colinearity) to guide her movements. We have argued elsewhere that the dorsal visual pathway from occipital to parietal cortex may underlie these preserved visuomotor skills in DF. If so, the limitations in her ability to use different kinds of “pattern” information to guide her hand rotation suggest that such information may need to be transmitted from the ventral visual stream to these parietal areas to enable the full range of prehensive acts in the intact individual.