A quantitative analysis of illusion magnitude changes induced by rotation of contextual distractor

• Autorzy: Bulatov A. , Bulatova N. , Surkys T. , Mickiene L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the present study, the predictions of the computational model of centroid extraction were verified in psychophysical examination of the length illusion induced by stimuli comprising the conventional or asymmetric Müller-Lyer wings as the contextual distractors. In experiments, the illusion magnitude changes evoked by rotation of distractors with different spatial parameters were quantitatively determined. It was demonstrated that the model calculations adequately account for the illusion magnitude variations shown by all the subjects for all modifications of stimuli. A good correspondence between the experimental and theoretical data supports the suggestion that local positional biases caused by the neural processes of automatic centroid extraction can be one of the main reasons of emergence of illusions of the Müller-Lyer type.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

quantitative analysis; length illusion; centroid; distractor rotation; perceptual positional shift

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 75
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.238-251,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Bulatov A.

• Laboratory of Visual Neurophysiology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania

autor

Bulatova N.

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

autor

Surkys T.

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

autor

Mickiene L.

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

Bibliografia

• Akutsu H, McGraw PV, Levi DM (1999) Alignment of separated patches: multiple location tags. Vis Res 39: 789-801.
• Badcock DR, Hess RF, Dobbins K (1996) Localization of element clusters: Multiple cues. Vis Res 36: 1467-1472.
• Barrow HG, Tenenbaum JM (1981) Interpreting line draw¬ings as three-dimensional surfaces. Artificial Intelligence 17: 75-116.
• Baud-Bovy G, Soechting J (2001) Visual localization of the center of mass of compact, asymmetric, two-dimensional shapes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27: 692-706.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A, Bulatova N, Loginovich Y (2009) Centroid extraction and illusions of extent with different contextual flanks. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) 69: 504-525.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A, Gutauskas A, Mickiene L, Kadziene G (2010) Center-of-mass alterations and visual illusions of extent. Biol Cybern 102: 475-487.
• Bulatov A, Bertulis A, Mickiene L, Surkys T, Bielevicius A (2011) Contextual flanks' tilting and magnitude of illu¬sion of extent. Vis Res 51: 58-64.
• Bulatov A, Bulatova N, Surkys T (2012) Perpendicularity misjudgments caused by contextual stimulus elements. Vis Res 71: 1-9.
• Bulatov A, Bulatova N, Mickiene L, Bielevicius A (2013) Perceptual mislocalization of a single set of the Muller- Lyer wings. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) 73: 417-429.
• Bulatov A, Bulatova N, Loginovich Y, Surkys T (2015) Illusion of extent evoked by closed two-dimensional shapes. Biol Cybern 109: 163-178.
• Coren S (1986) An efferent component in the visual percep¬tion of direction and extent. Psychol Rev 93: 391-410.
• Day RH (2006) Two principles of perception revealed by geometrical illusions. Australian J Psychol 58: 123-129.
• Gillam B (1998) Illusions at Century's End. In: Perception and Cognition at Century's End (Hochberg J, Ed.) Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p. 95-136.
• Greene E, Nelson B (1997) Evaluating Muller-Lyer effects using single fin-set configurations. Percept Psychophys 59: 293-312.
• Gregory RL (1968) Perceptual illusions and brain models. Proc Royal Sci London: Series B - Biological Sciences 171: 279-296.
• Hirsch J, Mjolsness E (1992) A center-of-mass computation describes the precision of random dot displacement dis-crimination. Vis Res 32: 335-346.
• Intriligator J, Cavanagh P (2001) The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cogn Psychol 43: 171-216.
• McGraw PV, Whitaker D, Badcock DR, Skillen J (2003) Neither here nor there: localizing conflicting visual attri¬butes. J Vision 3: 265-273.
• Morgan MJ, Glennerster A (1991) Efficiency of locating centers of dot-clusters by human observers. Vis Res 31: 2075-2083.
• Morgan MJ, Hole GJ, Glennerster A (1990) Biases and sen¬sitivities in geometrical illusions. Vis Res 30: 1793-1810.
• Morgan MJ, Ward RM, Cleary RF (1994) Motion displace¬ment thresholds for compound stimuli predicted by the displacement of centroids. Vis Res 34: 747-749.
• Nakayama K, Mackaben M (1989) Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention. Vis Res 29: 1631-1647.
• Nanay B (2009) Shape constancy, not size constancy: a (par¬tial) explanation for the Muller-Lyer illusion. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Taatgen NA, van Rijn H, Eds). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, p. 579-584.
• Predebon J (2001) Spatial range of illusory effects in Muller- Lyer figures. Psychol Res 65: 226-234.
• Predebon J (2005) A comparison of length-matching and length-fractionation measures of Muller-Lyer distortions. Percept Psychophys 67: 264-273.
• Pressey AW, Pressey CA (1992) Attentive fields are related to focal and contextual features: A study of Muller-Lyer distortions. Percept Psychophys 51: 423-436.
• Post RB, Welch RB, Caufield K (1998) Relative spatial expansion and contraction within the Muller-Lyer and Judd illusions. Perception 27: 827-838.
• Redding GM, Vinson DW (2010) Virtual and drawing struc¬tures for the Muller-Lyer illusions. Atten Percept Psychophys 72: 1350-1366.
• Redding GM, Kramen AJ, Hankins JL (1997) The Muller- Lyer illusion as a consequence of picture perception. In:
• Studies in perception and action IV (Schmuckler MA, Kennedy JM, Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, p. 11-14.
• Sagi D, Julesz B (1986) Enhanced detection in the aperture of focal attention during simple shape discrimination tasks. Nature 321: 693-695.
• Searleman A, Porac C, Dafoe C, Hetzel B (2005) Altering Mueller-Lyer illusion magnitude using figural additions at the wing-shaft intersections. Am J Psychol 118: 619-637.
• Searleman A, Porac C, Alvin J, Peaslee K (2009) Manipulating the strength of the Ponzo and horizontal- vertical illusions through extraction of local cue informa¬tion. Am J Psychol 122: 383-394.
• Schloss KB, Fortenbaugh FC, Palmer SE (2014) The config- ural shape illusion. J Vision 14: 23.
• Watt RJ, Morgan MJ (1984) Spatial filters and the localiza¬tion of luminance changes in human vision. Vis Res 24: 1387-1397.
• Watt RJ, Morgan MJ (1985) A theory of the primitive spatial code in human vision. Vis Res 25: 1661-1674.
• Welch RB, Post RB, Lum W, Prinzmetal W (2004) The rela¬tionship between perceived length and egocentric loca¬tion in Muller-Lyer figures with one versus two chevrons. Percept Psychophys 66: 1095-1104.
• Whitaker D, McGraw PV, Pacey I, Barrett BT (1996) Centroid analysis predicts visual localization of first- and second-order stimuli. Vis Res 36: 2957-2970.
• Wright JM, Morris AP, Krekelberg B (2011) Weighted inte¬gration of visual position information. J Vision 11: 1-16.