Abstract

Explanations of the Ponzo size illusion, the simultaneous contrast illusion, and the Craik-O’Brien-Cornsweet brightness illusions involve either stimulus-driven processes (assimilation, enhanced contrast, and anchoring) or prior experiences. Real-world up-down asymmetries for typical direction of illumination and ground planes in our physical environment should influence these illusions if they are experience based, but not if they are stimulus driven. Results presented here demonstrate differences in illusion strengths between upright and inverted versions of all three illusions. A left-right asymmetry of the Cornsweet illusion was produced by manipulating the direction of illumination, providing further support for the involvement of an experience-based explanation. When the inducers were incompatible with the targets being located at the different distances, the Ponzo illusion persisted and so did the influence from orientation, providing evidence for involvement of processes other than size constancy. As defined here, upright for the brightness illusions is consistent with an interpretation of a shaded bulging surface and a 3D object resulting from a light-from-above assumption triggering compensation for varying illumination. Upright for the Ponzo illusion is consistent with the inducers in the form of converging lines being interpreted as railway tracks receding on the ground triggering size constancy effects. The implications of these results, and other results providing evidence against experience-based accounts of the illusions, are discussed.

Highlights

  • Explanations of visual illusions can be categorized as either stimulus driven or experience based, and both types of explanations have received empirical support

  • Experiment 2 replicated the influence of orientation on the Cornsweet and contrast illusions, and provided evidence that the direction of illumination from the right side in the lab caused the horizontal anisotropy found for the Cornsweet illusion in Experiment 1

  • Experiment 3 showed that the Ponzo illusion persists the image is not compatible with the targets being at different distances from the observer, and no compensation of proximal size due to distance is required

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Explanations of visual illusions can be categorized as either stimulus driven or experience based, and both types of explanations have received empirical support. Von Helmholtz (1866/1924) suggested that experiences shape the input from the eyes, a process described as unconscious inference Such empirically driven explanations predict influences of orientation on perceived illusion magnitudes. Studies investigating influences of orientation on perceived illusions are few When it comes to size illusions, Rock (1984) made informal observations and claimed that the classical Ponzo size-illusion (Fig. 1A; Ponzo, 1911) remained unchanged when inverting the display. When it comes to lightness illusions I have found no published investigations of the influence of the orientation on the simultaneous contrast (Fig. 1B; which dates back to Alhazen, see history in Wade, 1996). I investigate influences of orientation on illusion strengths for these three classical illusions: the Ponzo illusion, the simultaneous contrast illusion, and the Craik OBrien-Cornsweet lightness illusion, labelled Cornsweet illusion for simplicity

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call