A quantitative analysis of illusion magnitude predicted by several averaging theories of the Müller-Lyer illusion

Abstract

This article describes a quantitative method to evaluate several averaging (i,e., confusion and assimilation) theories by comparing predictions of the absolute magnitude of the Muller-Lyer (ML) illusion with results of previous studies of the composite ML figure. The magnitude of illusion was best predicted by Davies and Spencer's (1977) theory and by integrative field theory (Pressey & Pressey, 1992). Furthermore, when the ML figure was at the point of subject equality, the average of shaft and intertip distances, and the configural dimensions proposed by Davies and Spencer, were most frequently closest to being equal in the apex-in ML and apex-out ML. Results indicate that a comparison ofpredicted and reported absolute magnitudes ofthe ML illusion can provide quantitative criteria to distinguish and evaluate averaging theories of the ML illusion.

The Müller-Lyer line-length task interpreted as a conflict paradigm: A chronometric study and a diffusion account

“…This assumption corresponds to the general interpretation of geometrical-optical illusions as a manifestation of the resolution of a perceptual conflict (Day & Smith, 1989;Mundy, 2014;Westheimer, 2008). Specifically, it fits in well with earlier confusion or assimilation theories (DeLucia, 1993) but also with more recent population coding models emphasizing limited spatial resolution due to neuronal mechanisms of local averaging (Dragoi & Lockhead, 1999;Westheimer, 2008). The scatter of diffused light in the eyeball, which blurs and distorts the retinal image, the spontaneous neuronal background discharge, and the massive divergence and convergence of excitatory and inhibitory projections all mean that the radius of neuronal receptive fields increases in layers higher up in the nervous system (Wolfe et al, 2006;Rodieck, 1998).…”

“…Keywords Müller-Lyer illusion • Line perception • Conflict task • Diffusion model • Psychometric and chronometric function • Response bias • SensitivityThe classical Müller-Lyer (1889) illusion is one of the most striking and robust demonstrations in visual perception: a line of given length appears subjectively longer (shorter) when inward (outward)-pointing arrows are attached to its ends 1 . Many aspects of this illusion have been thoroughly investigated, including geometrical and physical parameters defining the stimuli (DeLucia, 1993;Dragoi & Lockhead, 1999), neurophysiological correlates of the illusion 1 Note that some authors call inward-pointing arrows (> <) "outward arrows" (Day, 1972), "outgoing wings" (Coren & Girgus, 1972), or "tail fins" (Wang et al, 1998).…”

The Haptic Müller-Lyer Illusion in Sighted and Blind People

“…The present experiments cannot discriminate between an averaging model and some other general confusion models, since both are consistent with an increase in illusion magnitude with more acute angles. An averaging model would assume that subjects perceive the endings of the lines as lying in the middle of an ovoid defined by the wings configuration (see DeLucia 1993). This averaging process would yield underestimation in the wings-in configuration, and overestimation in the wings-out stimuli.…”

Der Einfluss geometrisch-optischer Täuschungen auf sakkadische Augenbewegungen

“…Die Beobachtung, dass eine okzipitale Läsion die Müller-Lyer-Illusion aufhebt, während bei Patienten mit unilateralem Neglekt ohne Hemianopie die Müller-Lyer-Illusion erhalten bleibt [5], weist darauf hin, dass die Informationsverarbeitung für diese optische Täuschung im okzipitalen Kortex auf einer retinotopisch kodierten Ebene der Informationsverarbeitung erfolgt. Wahrscheinlich führt das visuelle System eine Mittelwertbildung zwischen dem beabsichtigten Ziel der Augenbewegung (Endpunkte der Linien) und den benachbarten Pfeilschenkeln durch [7,17], die sowohl zu einer Verschiebung des Fixationspunktes als auch des programmierten Zielpunktes für die sakkadische Augenbewegung führen kann [10].…”