Attractive Contours of the Ebbinghaus Illusion

Sherman, Joshua A.; Chouinard, Philippe A.

doi:10.1177/0031512515626632

Cited by 17 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings suggest that dogs perceptually rescale the target circles in the display so that they appear more like the other inducer circles. In the Delboeuf illusion, thought to be similar to the Ebbinghaus-Titchener illusion in terms of its underlying mechanisms (Sherman & Chouinard, 2016), both Byosiere et al (2016) and Miletto Petrazzini et al (2016) found that dogs were not susceptible (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Visual Perception and Misperceptionmentioning

confidence: 95%

What do dogs (Canis familiaris) see? A review of vision in dogs and implications for cognition research

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 20 years, a large amount of research has been conducted in an attempt to uncover the cognitive abilities of the domestic dog. While substantial advancements have been made, progress has been impeded by the fact that little is known about how dogs visually perceive their external environment. It is imperative that future research determines more precisely canine visual processing capabilities, particularly considering the increasing number of studies assessing cognition via paradigms requiring vision. This review discusses current research on visual cognition and emphasizes the importance of understanding dog visual processing. We review several areas of vision research in domestic dogs, such as sensitivity to light, visual perspective, visual acuity, form perception, and color vision, with a focus on how these abilities may affect performance in cognition tasks. Additionally, we consider the immense diversity seen in dog morphology and explore ways in which these physical differences, particularly in facial morphology, may result in, or perhaps even be caused by, different visual processing capacities in dogs. Finally, we suggest future directions for research in dog vision and cognition.

show abstract

Section: Visual Perception and Misperceptionmentioning

confidence: 95%

What do dogs (Canis familiaris) see? A review of vision in dogs and implications for cognition research

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While all eight dogs demonstrated above chance performance on control conditions, suggesting they were able to learn a size discrimination task successfully, six subjects performed at chance when presented with the Delboeuf illusion, indicative of null susceptibility, and two demonstrated significantly below chance performance, indicative of reversed susceptibility. The null susceptibility observed when presented with the Delboeuf illusion is perhaps not surprising, as the illusory effect of this illusion has been found to be much weaker compared to the Ebbinghaus‐Titchener in the same human participants (Sherman & Chouinard, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Perhaps dogs are susceptible to certain illusions but not others. Illusions do vary in effect, and therefore, dogs may be less sensitive to the size difference induced by the Müller‐Lyer illusion and Delboeuf distorting illusions as they might be weaker in illusory effect than the Ebbinghaus‐Titchener illusion (Sherman & Chouinard, 2016). Alternatively, animal species with poor visual acuity, compared to humans, may not be capable of perceiving minute differences between the stimuli (Byosiere et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illusion susceptibility in domestic dogs

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic dogs play many vital roles in human lives; however, relatively little is known about how they perceive the world visually. Given dogs’ recent popularity as a subject in cognitive and behavioural studies, it is important to understand how they visually interpret the world around them. One way to evaluate perception is to assess illusion susceptibility; specifically, how visual information is processed, interpreted and modified post‐retinally. While illusion susceptibility has been used across a variety of species to comparatively assess the similarities and differences in visual processing and perception, this relatively novel methodological approach has only recently been adapted to evaluate perception in domestic dogs. Here, we present a comprehensive overview of the findings from studies that have evaluated domestic dogs’ illusion susceptibility, highlighting the relevance of these results for those studying illusion susceptibility in animals as well as canine behaviour and cognition. More specifically, the ultimate goal of this review is to answer the questions: (a) Are dogs susceptible to visual illusions? (b) If so, are they susceptible to illusions in a way that parallels humans and/or other animals? (c) Are findings, within dogs, consistent and if not, how might these be interpreted and explained?

show abstract

“…One proposed explanation for the size misperception is the contour interaction theory (Jaeger, 1978;Goto et al, 2007;Sherman & Chouinard, 2016). According to this theory, contextual contours that are physically proximal to the inner circle perceptually attract the edges of the inner circle while contextual contours physically further away, past a certain distance, perceptually repel the edges of the inner circle.…”

Section: Comparison Of Findings For the Ebbinghaus Ponzo And Müllermentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In humans, geometrical illusions are thought to reflect mechanisms that are usually helpful for seeing the world in a predictable manner. These mechanisms deceive us given the right set of circumstances, correcting visual input where a correction is not necessary. Investigations of non-human animals' susceptibility to geometrical illusions have yielded contradictory results, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms with which animals see the world may differ across species. In this review, we first collate studies showing that different species are susceptible to specific illusions in the same or reverse direction as humans. Based on a careful assessment of these findings, we then propose several ecological and anatomical factors that may affect how a species perceives illusory stimuli. We also consider the usefulness of this information for determining whether sight in different species might be more similar to human sight, being influenced by contextual information, or to how machines process and transmit information as programmed. Future testing in animals could provide new theoretical insights by focusing on establishing dissociations between stimuli that may or may not alter perception in a particular species. This information could improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind illusions, but also provide insight into how sight is subjectively experienced by different animals, and the degree to which vision is innate versus acquired, which is difficult to examine in humans.

show abstract

Attractive Contours of the Ebbinghaus Illusion

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

What do dogs (Canis familiaris) see? A review of vision in dogs and implications for cognition research

What do dogs (Canis familiaris) see? A review of vision in dogs and implications for cognition research

Illusion susceptibility in domestic dogs

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About