L'influence de la signification du matériel sur l'illusion de Poggendorff

Poggendorff illusion: Effects of intelligence, viewing distance, and space between the vertical lines

“…Pressey & Sweeney (1969) report obtaining the typical practice effects using the method of production with college students. They also re port (Pressey & Sweeney, 1970) that the illusion decreases with age when measured by the method of production, replicating the trend found with the method of adj u stment (Vurpillot, 1957;Leibowitz & Gwozdecki, 1967). Besides being a very quick method requiring little in the way of equipment, the method of production avoids the errors of anticipation and perserveration inherent in the method of adjustment.…”

The interaction between stimulus variations and age trends in the Poggendorff illusion

“…Vurpillot (1957) found no sex differences in a study that included subjects between the ages of 5 and 40 years, nor did Leibowitz and Gwozdecki (1967) find any in a study with subjects ranging in age from 5 to 80 years. Porac et ala (1979) found a slightly greater illusion magnitude for males thanfor females.…”

“…For example, if age changes lateral inhibitory mechanisms, then different age trends might be expected as a function of changes in transversal angle, whereas, if cognitive-judgmental changes are responsible for the age trends, changes in separation of parallels might be expected to produce the greatest variation in age trends in illusion magnitude. Unfortunately, each of the three developmental studies on the Poggendorff illusion reported to date (Leibowitz & Gwozdecki, 1967;Pressey & Sweeney, 1970;Vurpillot, 1957) limited its measurements to a single configuration; hence, such comparisons of age trend as a function of configuration cannot be made. To directly assess how age trends vary for particular illusion variants (presumably due to the differential contribution of the various illusion mechanisms to each configuration), it is necessary to parametrically vary the major parameters within a given illusion array, as well as the age of the subjects tested.…”

Levels of perceptual processing in the development of visual illusions.

“…Let us now consider the problem of perceptual development as it is reflected in visual illusions. The extant data indicate that some illusions, such as the Muller-Lyer or the Poggendorff, show a decrease in magnitude from childhood to adulthood (Binet, 1895;Piaget, Maire, & Privat, 1954;Pollack, 1969;Vurpillot, 1957) while others, such as the Ebbinghaus or the Ponzo illusion, show an increase in magnitude with age (Leibowitz & Judisch, 1967;Wapner & Werner, 1957). Some theorists have attributed certain age changes in illusion magnitude to structural changes in the visual receptor system (Pollack, 1969;Sjostrom & Pollack, 1971), while other theorists favor central processing interpretations of the observed age changes (Selinka, 1939;Piaget, 1969;Wohlwill, 1960).…”