Share This Article:

Inconstancy and Inconsistency of Visual Illusory Phenomena? The Case of the Poggendorff Figure

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:382KB) PP. 257-264
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2012.33036    4,105 Downloads   6,375 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Since its conception, the Poggendorff Figure has always been studied by considering the absolute role of the variables involved in determining the illusion (e.g. the angle or the distance between the inducer and the test stimuli). By contrast, we suggest that the role of such variables is relative to the specific conditions in which the illusory configuration is presented; in particular, we propose that multiple variables enter the computation leading to the Poggendorff Illusion, but that their relative weight varies as a function of the specific experimental conditions adopted. Here, we measured the point of subjective collinearity between the oblique lines of the Poggendorff Figure as a function of the orientation of the inducer (a square), the orientation of the test stimuli (changing the linear distance between them) and the size of the whole configuration. We found that when the inducer square was upright the illusory effect varied according to the distance between the test segments, while when the square was tilted the effect was determined only by its orientation. Critically, the latter condition led to a reversal of the “classic” illusory effect. Leveling the playing field in terms of the information available to the observer, the results indicate that the illusory effect is determined by different types of processing in different conditions of stimulus presentation.

Cite this paper

Gallace, A. , Martelli, M. & Daini, R. (2012). Inconstancy and Inconsistency of Visual Illusory Phenomena? The Case of the Poggendorff Figure. Psychology, 3, 257-264. doi: 10.4236/psych.2012.33036.

References

[1] Asch, S. E., & Witkin, H. A. (1948). Studies in space orientation: II. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 455-477. doi:10.1037/h0054121
[2] Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1999). Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 83-101. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.83
[3] Blackmore, C., & Carpenter, R. H., & Georgeson, M. A. (1970). Lateral inhibition between orientation detectors in the human visual system. Nature, 228, 37-39. doi:10.1038/228037a0
[4] Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 411-437. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2519
[5] Carpenter, R. H. S., & Blakemore, C. (1973). Interactions between orientations in human vision. Experimental Brain Research, 18, 287-303. doi:10.1007/BF00234599
[6] Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[7] Day, R. H., & Dickinson, R. G. (1976). Apparent length of the arms of acute and obtuse angles, and the components of the Muller-Lyer illusion. Australian Journal of Psychology, 28, 137-148. doi:10.1080/00049537608254638
[8] Day, R. H., & Jolly, W. J. (1987). A note on apparent displacement of lines and dots on oblique parallels. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 187-189. doi:10.3758/BF03204880
[9] Day, R. H., Watson, W. L., & Jolly, W. J. (1986). The Poggendorff displacement effect with only three dots. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 351-354. doi:10.3758/BF03203003
[10] De Valois, R. L., & De Valois, K. K. (1990). Spatial vision. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[11] De Valois, K. K., De Valois, R. L., & Yund, E. W. (1979). Responses of striate cortex cells to grating and checkerboard patterns. The Journal of Physiology, 291, 483-505.
[12] DiLorenzo, J., & Rock, I. (1982). The rod and frame effect as a function of the righting of the frame. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 536-546. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.536
[13] Eagleman, D. M. (2001). Visual illusions and neurobiology. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 920-926. doi:10.1038/35104092
[14] Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal way. Nature, 415, 429-433. doi:10.1038/415429a
[15] Fineman, M. (1996) Poggendorff’s illusion. In M. Fineman (Ed.), The nature of visual illusion (pp. 151-159). New York: Dover.
[16] Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2005). Examining the crossmodal consequences of viewing the Müller-Lyer illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 162, 490-496. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2130-8
[17] Gibson, J. J. (1937). Adaptation, after effect and contrast in the perception of the tilted lines: II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 553-569. doi:10.1037/h0057585
[18] Gibson, J. J., & Radner, M. (1937). Adaptation, aftereffect and contrast in the perception of the tilted lines: I. Quantitative studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 453-467. doi:10.1037/h0059826
[19] Gregory, R. L. (1968). Visual illusions. Scientific American, 219, 66-76. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1168-66
[20] Hering, E. (1861). Beitrage zur psychologie. Leipzig: Engleman.
[21] Judd, C. H. (1902). Practice and its effect on the perception of illusions. Psychological Review, 9, 27-39. doi:10.1037/h0073071
[22] Kanizsa, G. (1972). Schrumpfung von visuellen Feldern bei amodaler Erganzung. Studia Psychologica, 14, 208-210.
[23] Kanizsa, G. (1975). Amodal completion and phenomenal shrinkage of surfaces in the visual field. Italian Journal of Psychology, 2, 187-195.
[24] Masini, R., Costa, T., Ferraro, M., & De Marco, A. (1994). Modifications of the Poggendorff effect as a function of random dot textures between the verticals. Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 505-512. doi:10.3758/BF03205308
[25] Matin, L., & Fox, C. R. (1989). Visually perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: Linerly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity. Vision Research, 29, 315-324. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(89)90080-1
[26] Millar, S., & Al-Attar, Z. (2002). The Müller-Lyer illusion in touch and vision: Implications for multisensory processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 353-365. doi:10.3758/BF03194709
[27] Parks, T. E. (2009). Demystifying the Poggendorff: A start. Perception, 38, 142-144. doi:10.1068/p5512
[28] Porac, C. (1994). Comparison of the wings-in, wings-out, and Brentano variants of the Müller-Lyer illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 107, 69-83. doi:10.2307/1423290
[29] Predebon, J. (2001). Spatial range of illusory effects in Müller-Lyer figures. Psychological Research, 65, 226-234. doi:10.1007/s004260100066
[30] Pressey, A. W., & Sweeney, O. (1972). Acute angles and the Poggendorff illusion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 169-174. doi:10.1080/00335557243000049
[31] Pressey, A. W., & Di Lollo, V. (1978). Effects of distance between standard and comparison lines on the Muller-Lyer Illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 415-419. doi:10.3758/BF03199738
[32] Prinzmetal, W., Shimamura, A. P., & Mikolinski, M. (2001). The Ponzo illusion and the Tilt-Constancy theory. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 99-114. doi:10.3758/BF03200506
[33] Prinzmetal, W., & Beck, D. M. (2001). The tilt constancy theory of visual illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 206-217. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.206
[34] Purves, D., & Lotto, B. (2002). Why we see what we do: An empirical theory of vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
[35] Rock, I. (1990). The frame of reference. In R. Irvin (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 243-268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[36] Spence, C., & Driver J. (Eds.) (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[37] Weintraub, D., Krantz, D., & Olson, T. (1980). The Poggendorff illusion: Consider all angles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 718-725. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.6.4.718
[38] Wenderoth, P. (1974). The distinction between the rod-and-frame illusion and the rod-and-frame test. Perception, 3, 205-212. doi:10.1068/p030205
[39] Wenderoth, P. (1977). An analysis of the rod-and-frame illusion and its variants, In R. H. Day, & G. V. Stanley (Eds.), Studies in perception. Perth: University of Western Australia Press.
[40] Wenderoth, P., & Beh, H. (1977). Component analysis of orientation illusions. Perception, 6, 57-75. doi:10.1068/p060057
[41] Wenderoth, P., & van der Zwan, R. (1991). Local and global mechanisms of one- and two-dimensional orientation illusions. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 321-332. doi:10.3758/BF03212224
[42] Wilson, A. E., & Pressey, A. W. (1976). The role of apparent distance in the Poggendoff illusion. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 309-316. doi:10.3758/BF03199458
[43] Zanuttini, L. (1973). Una nuova spiegazione dell'illusione di Poggendorff. (A new explanation for the Poggendorff illusion). Rivista di Psicologia, 67, 295-314.
[44] Zanuttini, L. (1976). A new explanation for the Poggendorff illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 29-32. doi:10.3758/BF03198700
[45] Zoccolotti, P., Antonucci, G., & Spinelli, D. (1993). The gap between the rod and the frame influences the rod-and-frame effect with small and large inducing displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 4, 14-19.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.