Current accounts of the Ebbinghaus illusion emphasize either size contrast or contour interaction processes. To assess these alternatives, four variants of the Ebbinghaus figure were constructed using 1, 5, 9, or 13 small circles dispersed along the perimeter of larger contextual circles. 30 observers ranked the perceived size of the central circles and a single control circle. The rankings indicated that increasing the number of small circles reduced the perceived size of the central circle. The results parallel the effects of contextual arcs on the Ebbinghaus illusion and suggest that the mis-estimations of central circle size in Ebbinghaus figures result primarily from contour interactions.
The Ebbinghaus illusion was produced using figures with four small or large contextual discs located either near or far from the central disc. For similar figures, the discs were either all black or all white; for dissimilar figures, black and white contextual and central discs were used in opposition. 48 observers, in equal numbers, were assigned to one of the four crossings of size and separation of the contextual discs and, using the converging method of limits, illusion magnitude scores for each Ebbinghaus configuration were obtained. The central disc appeared larger when bounded by small contextual discs and smaller when the contextual discs were more distant. Contrary to size contrast theory, uniformly colored discs did not generate greater illusions; instead, white central discs appeared larger than black ones regardless of contextual color. Collectively, the results indicated that contour interactions play a prominent role in producing the Ebbinghaus illusion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.