Effects of cortical distance on the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions

The Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions affect the perceived size of a target circle depending on the size and proximity of circular inducers or a ring. Converging evidence suggests that these illusions are driven by interactions between contours mediated by their cortical distance in primary visual cortex. We tested the effect of cortical distance on these illusions using two methods: First, we manipulated retinal distance between target and inducers in a two-interval forced choice design, finding that targets appeared larger with a closer surround. Next, we predicted that targets presented peripherally should appear larger due to cortical magnification. Hence, we tested the illusion strength when positioning the stimuli at various eccentricities, with results supporting this hypothesis. We calculated estimated cortical distances between illusion elements in each experiment and used these estimates to compare the relationship between cortical distance and illusion strength across our experiments. In a final experiment, we modified the Delboeuf illusion to test whether the influence of the inducers/annuli in this illusion is influenced by an inhibitory surround. We found evidence that an additional outer ring makes targets appear smaller compared to a single-ring condition, suggesting that near and distal contours have antagonistic effects on perceived target size.

[1]  Aline F. Cretenoud,et al.  Perceptual grouping leads to objecthood effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion , 2020, Journal of vision.

[2]  L. Naccache,et al.  Learning to see the Ebbinghaus illusion in the periphery reveals a top-down stabilization of size perception across the visual field , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[3]  Wladimir Kirsch,et al.  On Why Objects Appear Smaller in the Visual Periphery , 2019, Psychological science.

[4]  Yi Jiang,et al.  Low-spatial-frequency bias in context-dependent visual size perception. , 2018, Journal of vision.

[5]  Alexander Maier,et al.  Binocular Modulation of Monocular V1 Neurons , 2018, Current Biology.

[6]  D. Todorović,et al.  Is the Ebbinghaus illusion a size contrast illusion? , 2018, Acta psychologica.

[7]  Robert Pepperell,et al.  The Perceived Size and Shape of Objects in Peripheral Vision , 2016, i-Perception.

[8]  Joshua A. Sherman,et al.  Attractive Contours of the Ebbinghaus Illusion , 2016, Perceptual and motor skills.

[9]  Viktor Jirsa,et al.  Quantifying the Ebbinghaus figure effect: target size, context size, and target-context distance determine the presence and direction of the illusion , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[10]  Jelle A. van Dijk,et al.  Cortical idiosyncrasies predict the perception of object size , 2015, Nature Communications.

[11]  T. Jaeger,et al.  The Ebbinghaus Illusion: New Contextual Effects and Theoretical Considerations , 2015, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  Colin W G Clifford,et al.  The tilt illusion: Phenomenology and functional implications , 2014, Vision Research.

[13]  D. Samuel Schwarzkopf,et al.  Effective Connectivity within Human Primary Visual Cortex Predicts Interindividual Diversity in Illusory Perception , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Michel Dojat,et al.  Retinotopic and Lateralized Processing of Spatial Frequencies in Human Visual Cortex during Scene Categorization , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  D. Samuel Schwarzkopf,et al.  Subjective Size Perception Depends on Central Visual Cortical Magnification in Human V1 , 2013, PloS one.

[16]  A. Oliva,et al.  A Real-World Size Organization of Object Responses in Occipitotemporal Cortex , 2012, Neuron.

[17]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Dynamic Coding of Signed Quantities in Cortical Feedback Circuits , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[18]  Eyal Seidemann,et al.  Uniform spatial spread of population activity in primate parafoveal V1. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  M. Goodale,et al.  Afterimage size is modulated by size-contrast illusions. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[20]  S. Dumoulin,et al.  The Relationship between Cortical Magnification Factor and Population Receptive Field Size in Human Visual Cortex: Constancies in Cortical Architecture , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Interocular induction of illusory size perception , 2011, BMC Neuroscience.

[22]  D. Samuel Schwarzkopf,et al.  The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  D. Fernandez-Duque,et al.  Knowledge influences perception: Evidence from the Ebbinghaus illusion , 2010 .

[24]  Isabelle Mareschal,et al.  Cortical distance determines whether flankers cause crowding or the tilt illusion. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[25]  Y. Otsuka,et al.  Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in 5- to 8-month-old infants , 2010 .

[26]  D. Kersten,et al.  Attention-Dependent Representation of a Size Illusion in Human V1 , 2008, Current Biology.

[27]  D. Pelli,et al.  The uncrowded window of object recognition , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  A. Hyvärinen,et al.  Spatial frequency tuning in human retinotopic visual areas. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[29]  Stephen Long,et al.  Effects of Contour Proximity and Lightness on Delboeuf Illusions Created by Circumscribed Letters , 2007, Perceptual and motor skills.

[30]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[31]  Frans W Cornelissen,et al.  On the generality of crowding: visual crowding in size, saturation, and hue compared to orientation. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[32]  D. Kersten,et al.  The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[33]  Brian Roberts,et al.  The Roles of Inducer Size and Distance in the Ebbinghaus Illusion (Titchener Circles) , 2005, Perception.

[34]  Robert O. Duncan,et al.  Cortical Magnification within Human Primary Visual Cortex Correlates with Acuity Thresholds , 2003, Neuron.

[35]  J. Movshon,et al.  Nature and interaction of signals from the receptive field center and surround in macaque V1 neurons. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  A. T. Smith,et al.  Estimating receptive field size from fMRI data in human striate and extrastriate visual cortex. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion Nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp , 2001, Current Biology.

[38]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Similarity and Lightness Effects in Ebbinghaus Illusion Created by Keyboard Characters , 2001, Perceptual and motor skills.

[39]  W. L. Brigner,et al.  Ebbinghaus Illusion: Effect of Figural Similarity upon Magnitude of Illusion When Context Elements are Equal in Perceived Size , 1997, Perceptual and motor skills.

[40]  M. Goodale,et al.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand , 1995, Current Biology.

[41]  S Coren,et al.  Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Katherine L. Grasso,et al.  Contour Lightness and Separation Effects in the Ebbinghaus Illusion , 1993, Perceptual and motor skills.

[43]  James T. Mcllwain.  Point images in the visual system: new interest in an old idea , 1986, Trends in Neurosciences.

[44]  D. Weintraub,et al.  Fragments of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: Contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  R. Lorden,et al.  Delboeuf Illusions: Contour or Size Detector Interactions? , 1980, Perceptual and motor skills.

[46]  R. W. Ditchburn.  Seeing is Deceiving: The Psychology of Visual Illusions , 1979 .

[47]  D. Weintraub,et al.  Ebbinghaus illusion: context, contour, and age influence the judged size of a circle amidst circles. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  T Jaeger,et al.  Ebbinghaus illusions: Size contrast or contour interaction phenomena? , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  A. Pressey.  Measuring the Titchener circles and Delboeuf illusions with the method of adjustment , 1977 .

[50]  Stanley Coren,et al.  Size contrast as a function of figural similarity , 1974 .

[51]  S. Coren,et al.  The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[52]  D W Massaro,et al.  Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[53]  D. Massaro,et al.  A test of a perspective theory of geometrical illusions. , 1970, The American journal of psychology.

[54]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[55]  D. Weintraub,et al.  Delboeuf illusion: displacement versus diameter, arc deletions, and brightness contrast. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[56]  D. Whitteridge,et al.  The representation of the visual field on the cerebral cortex in monkeys , 1961, The Journal of physiology.

[57]  J. Gibson.  Adaptation, after-effect, and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after-effect. , 1937 .

[58]  Edward Bradford Titchener,et al.  Experimental psychology: A manual of laboratory practice, vol. II: Quantitative experiments , 1901 .

[59]  D. S. Schwarzkopf.  Where Is Size in the Brain of the Beholder? , 2015, Multisensory research.

[60]  P. Bressan,et al.  Going round in circles: shape effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion. , 2002, Spatial vision.

[61]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. , 1999 .

[62]  Jessica M. Choplin,et al.  Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[63]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[64]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[65]  Evans Rb,et al.  Joseph Delboeuf on visual illusions: a historical sketch. , 1995 .

[66]  R. Evans,et al.  Joseph Delboeuf on visual illusions: a historical sketch. , 1995, The American journal of psychology.

[67]  Robert H. Pollack,et al.  Effect of contrast level and temporal order on the Ebbinghaus circles illusion , 1977 .

[68]  J. O. Robinson.  The Psychology of Visual Illusion , 1972 .

[69]  T OBONAI,et al.  Induction effects in estimates of extent. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[70]  C. Seashore,et al.  Experimental psychology: A manual of laboratory practice. , 1901 .

[71]  D. Spalding.  The Principles of Psychology , 1873, Nature.