In addition to the perception–action dissociation model (for review, see Goodale,
2014), a series of alternative models examining the effects of illusions on action have also emerged over time. For instance, some have proposed that a common visual representation is used for perception and action. Multiple studies have shown that grasp aperture
can be adjusted to the illusory sizes of objects rather than their veridical physical sizes, potentially with the same degree of illusion modulation as for perception, in contrast with a strict interpretation of perception–action dissociation (Franz, Fahle, Bulthoff, & Gegenfurtner,
2001; Franz, Gegenfurtner, Bülthoff, & Fahle,
2000; Pavani, Boscagli, Benvenuti, Rabeffetti, & Farne,
1999). Furthermore, others have shown that measures other than grasp aperture are susceptible to visual illusions, such as movement amplitude (de Grave, Brenner, & Smeets,
2004), or how the object is lifted or gripped (Brenner & Smeets,
1996; Jackson & Shaw,
2000). Several studies have shown that both saccadic and pointing movements are susceptible to the Müller-Lyer illusion, such that when lines are perceived as longer, movements to their perceived endpoints have longer amplitudes (for review, see Bruno et al.,
2010). Thus, it is argued that illusory perception does have an effect on aspects of action.