Summation of two illusions of extent

• Autorzy: Bertulis A. , Surkys T. , Bielevicius A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the present visual psychophysical study, the Oppel‑Kundt and and Müller‑Lyer illusion magnitudes were measured separately (by single figures) and in combination (by two patterns superposed spatially). Data for 30 subjects revealed extensive variability both for the separate and combined illusion strength. Nevertheless, the effect of addition of the perceived length distortions was established. The combined illusions were significantly stronger than the separate ones. Dynamics of the misperceptions summation was studied by varying length of the Müller‑Lyer wings in the superposed stimuli. According to the experimental data obtained, the two misperceptions in length occurred and combined into sensory response varying in dependence on the spatial parameters of the superposed stimuli and on the individual experimental accomplishment. The data supported an explanation for the origin of the filled/unfilled illusion: overestimate of a filled interval length developed due to the spatiotemporal integration along a continuous excitation path elicited by the real or imaginary contours of the filling.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 78
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.148-162,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Bertulis A.

• Institute of Research of Biological Systems and Genetics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

autor

Surkys T.

• Institute of Research of Biological Systems and Genetics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

autor

Bielevicius A.

• Institute of Research of Biological Systems and Genetics, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

Bibliografia

• Andrews DP (1967) Perception of contour orientation in the central fovea. Part I. Short lines. Vision Res 7: 975–997.
• Bates M (1923) A study of the Müller‑Lyer illusion, with spatial reference to paradoxical movement and the effect of attitude. Amer J Psychol 34: 46–72.
• Bertulis A, Bulatov A (2005) Distortions in length perception: visual field anisotropy and geometrical illusions. Neurosci Behav Physiol 35: 423–434.
• Bertulis A, Surkys T, Bulatov A, Gutauskas A (2009) Three‑part Oppel‑Kundt illusory figure. Medicine 45: 871–877.
• Bertulis A, Surkys T, Bulatov A, Bielevičius A (2014) Temporal dynamics of the Oppel‑Kundt illusion compared to the Müller‑Lyer illusion. Acta Neurobiol Exp 74: 443–455.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A, Kocaniene J (1996) Investigation of size discrimination in relation to stimulus orientation. Sensory Systems 10: 28–43.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A, Miskiene L (1997) Geometrical illusions: study and modeling. Biol Cybern 77: 395–40.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A (1999) Distortions of length perception. Biol Cybern 80: 185–193.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A (2005) Superposition of illusory patterns with contrast variation. Acta Neurobiol Exp 65: 51–60.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A, Bulatova N, Loginovich Y (2009) Centroid extraction and illusions of extent with different contextual flanks. Acta Neurobiol Exp 69: 504–525.
• Bulatov A, Bulatova N, Surkys T, Miskiene L (2017) An effect of continuous con‑ textual filling in the filled‑space illusion. Acta Neurobiol Exp 77: 157–167.
• Coren S, Girgus JS (1972) Illusion decrement in intersecting line figures. Psychon Sci 26: 108–110.
• Craven BJ, Watt RJ (1989) The use of fractal image statistics in the estima‑ tion of lateral spatial extent. Spat Vis 4: 223–239.
• Craven BJ (1993) Orientation dependence of human line‑length judgments matches statistical structure in real‑world scenes. Proc R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci 253: 101–106.
• Davis CM (1970) Education and susceptibility to the Müller‑Lyer illusion among the Banyankole. J Social Psychol 82: 25–34.
• Ebbinghaus H (1902) The Principles of Psychology (in German), vols. I & II Vei, Leipzig. Erdfelder E, Faul F (1994) A class of information integration models for the Oppel‑Kundt illusion (in German). Z Psychol Z Angew Psychol 202: 133–160.
• Hering E (1861) Contribution to Physiology, Vol. 1 (in German). Engelmann, Leipzig. Intriligator J, Cavanagh P (2001) The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cogn Psychol 43: 171–216.
• Judd CH (1902) Practice and its effects on the geometrical illusions. Psychol Rev 9: 27–39.
• Kundt A (1863) Investigations of visual measure and optical illusions (in German). Ann Phys Chem 196: 118–158.
• Kunnapas TM (1957) Vertical‑horizontal illusion and surrounding field. Acta Physiol 13: 35–45.
• Lewis EO (1912) The illusion of filled space. Brit J Psychol 5: 36–50.
• Mansfield RJW (1974) Neural basis of orientation perception in primate vi‑ sion. Science 186: 1133–1135.
• Mikellidou K (2012) Illusions of filled extent: psychophysics and neuroim‑ aging methods [PhD Thesis]. University of York, New York, NY. Mikellidou K, Thompson P (2014) Crossing the line: estimations of line length in the Oppel‑Kundt illusion. J Vis 14: 20.
• Morgan MJ, Hole GJ, Glennerster A (1990) Biases and sensitivities in geo‑ metrical illusions. Vis Res 30: 1793–1810.
• Nakayama K, Mackaben M (1989) Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention. Vis Res 29: 1631–1647.
• Obonai T (1933) Contributions to the study of psychophysical induc‑ tion: III. Experiments on the illusions of field space. Jap J Psychol 8: 699–720.
• Orban GA, Kennedy H (1981) The influence of eccentricity on receptive field types and orientation selectivity in areas 17 and 18 of the cat. Brain Res 208: 203–208.
• Parker NI, Newbigging PL (1963) Magnitude and decrement of the Müller‑Lyer illusion as a  function of pre‑training. Canad J Psychol 17: 134–140.
• Piaget J, Osterrieth PA (1953) Research on the development of perceptions: XVIII The evolution of the Oppel‑Kundt illusion as a function of age (in French). Archieves de Psychologie 34: 1–34.
• Pollack RH (1970) Müller‑Lyer illusion effect of age, lightness, contrast and hue. Science 170: 93–95.
• Predebon J (1998) Decrement of the Brentano Müller‑Lyer illusion as a function of inspection time. Perception 27: 183–192.
• Rose D, Blakemore C (1974) An analysis of orientation selectivity in the cat’s visual cortex. Exp Brain Res 20: 1–17.
• Sagi D, Julesz B (1986) Enhanced detection in the aperture of focal atten‑ tion during simple shape discrimination tasks. Nature 321: 693–695.
• Spiegel HG (1937) On the influence of the intermediate field on visually assessed distances (in German). Psychol Forsch 21: 327–383.
• Tausch R (1954) Optical illusions as artifacts of forming processes based on size and form constancy in natural space perception (in German). Psychol Forsch 24: 299–348.
• Thomas JP, Gille J (1979) Bandwidths of orientation channels in human vision. J Opt Ame 69: 652–660.
• Wackermann J (2012a) Determinants of filled/empty optical illusion: Differ‑ ential effects of patterning. Acta Neurobiol Exp 72: 89–94.
• Wackermann J (2012b) Determinants of filled/empty optical illusion: In‑ fluence of luminance contrast and polarity. Acta Neurobiol Exp 72: 412–420.
• Wackermann J, Kastner K (2009) Paradoxical form of filled/empty optical illusion. Acta Neurobiol Exp 69: 560–563.
• Wackermann J, Kastner K (2010) Determinants of filled/empty optical il‑ lusion: search for the locus of maximal effect. Acta Neurobiol Exp 70: 423–434.
• Watt RJ (1990) The primal sketch in human vision. In: AI and the Eye (Blake A, Troscianko T, Eds). J Wiley and Sons, New York, USA. p. 147–180.
• Weidner R, Fink GR (2007) The neural mechanisms underlying the Müller‑Lyer illusion and its interaction with visuospatial judgments. Cereb Cortex 17: 878–884.
• Wundt W (1898) The geometric–optical illusions (in German). Abh Königl Sächs Gesellsch Wiss 24: 55–178.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.21307/ane‑2018‑014