Although a visual illusion is often viewed as an amusing trick, for the vision scientist it is a question that demands an answer, which leads to even more questioning. All researchers hold their own chain of questions, the links of which depend on the very theory they adhere to. Perceptual theories are devoted to answering questions concerning sensation and perception, but in doing so they shape concepts such as reality and representation, which necessarily affect the concept of illusion. Here we consider the macroscopic aspects of such concepts in vision sciences from three classic viewpoints—Ecological, Cognitive, Gestalt approaches—as we see this a starting point to understand in which terms illusions can become a tool in the hand of the neuroscientist. In fact, illusions can be effective tools in studying the brain in reference to perception and also to cognition in a much broader sense. A theoretical debate is, however, mandatory, in particular with regards to concepts such as veridicality and representation. Whether a perceptual outcome is considered as veridical or illusory (and, consequently, whether a class of phenomena should be classified as perceptual illusions or not) depends on the meaning of such concepts.
The purpose of this research is to present the employment of a simple-to-use crossmodal method for measuring haptic size illusions. The method, that we call See what you feel, was tested by employing Uznadze’s classic haptic aftereffect in which two spheres physically identical (test spheres) appear different in size after that the hands holding them underwent an adaptation session with other two spheres (adapting spheres), one bigger and the other smaller than the two test spheres. To measure the entity of the illusion, a three-dimensional visual scale was created and participants were asked to find on it the spheres that corresponded in size to the spheres they were holding in their hands out of sight. The method, tested on 160 right-handed participants, is robust and easily understood by participants.
According to both experimental research and common sense, classical music is a better fit for figurative art than jazz. We hypothesize that similar fits may reflect underlying crossmodal structural similarities between music and painting genres. We present two preliminary studies aimed at addressing our hypothesis. Experiment 1 tested the goodness of the fit between two music genres (classical and jazz) and two painting genres (figurative and abstract). Participants were presented with twenty sets of six paintings (three figurative, three abstract) viewed in combination with three sound conditions: 1) silence, 2) classical music, or 3) jazz. While figurative paintings scored higher aesthetic appreciation than abstract ones, a gender effect was also found: the aesthetic appreciation of paintings in male participants was modulated by music genre, whilst music genre did not affect the aesthetic appreciation in female participants. Our results support only in part the notion that classical music enhances the aesthetic appreciation of figurative art. Experiment 2 aimed at testing whether the conceptual categories 'figurative' and 'abstract' can be extended also to music. In session 1, participants were first asked to classify 30 paintings (10 abstract, 10 figurative, 10 ambiguous that could fit either category) as abstract or figurative and then to rate them for pleasantness; in session 2 participants were asked to classify 40 excerpts of music (20 classical, 20 jazz) as abstract or figurative and to rate them for pleasantness. Paintings which were clearly abstract or figurative were all classified accordingly, while the majority of ambiguous paintings were classified as abstract. Results also show a gender effect for painting's pleasantness: female participants rated higher ambiguous and abstract paintings. More interestingly, results show an effect of music genre on classification, showing that it is possible to classify music as figurative or abstract, thus supporting the hypothesis of cross-modal similarities between the two sensory-different artistic expressions.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.