Tendencies to eye movement, and misperception of curvature, direction, and length

Virsu, Veijo

doi:10.3758/bf03213030

Cited by 46 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the adult group there were substantial interactions between contour size and focal size, F(2, 442) = 3.55, p Ͻ .05, as well as between spatial distance and focal size, F(6, 126) = 3.82; p Ͻ .01. This result contradicts an efferent readiness approach, because it suggests the absolute amount of illusion should be the same for both focal sizes (Virsu, 1971;cf. retinal induction approach;Obonai, 1954).…”

Section: Control Conditionscontrasting

confidence: 49%

“…The feedback from corrective eye movements should result in a reduction in the magnitude of illusions when the distance from the contour of the figure to the center of gravity is larger than 1.5º. Virsu (1971) tested this "efferent readiness theory" and confirmed the prediction that peak overestimation of shaft length would occur when this distance was 1.5º, regardless of fin angle in Müller-Lyer displays.…”

supporting

confidence: 48%

“…Kaufmann and Richards (1969) demonstrated that subjects tended spontaneously to fixate the center of gravity of various geometrical forms if the form subtended a visual angle of less than 3º. Virsu (1971) cited data obtained by Festinger, White, and Allyn (1968) showing that for figures larger than 3º subjects tended to correct for these fixation biases with saccadic eye movements. The feedback from corrective eye movements should result in a reduction in the magnitude of illusions when the distance from the contour of the figure to the center of gravity is larger than 1.5º.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Length illusions and attentional deployment

Kersten

2000

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Length illusions are caused by the systematic manipulation of size ratios. The principle of relational determination (i.e., framing ratio) holds for different classical illusional displays and is described as a failure of selective attention that facilitates size constancy. Implementing a spatial distance (D) between the focal stimulus (of length F) and the contour marks (of length B) leads to illusions that contradict the description in terms of a simple framing ratio. The stimulus configuration rather than the framing ratio determines the illusions (two different ratios are independently effective, D/F and B/F). The relational determination of length illusions contradicts explanations in terms of either efferent readiness or attentional deployment. In a developmental approach, it was shown that a failure of selective attention to the length of the focal stimulus due to relational determination holds only for adults (aged 21–32 years). The B/F ratio tended to effectiveness in determining the illusions for children aged 7–9 years, but not for children aged 5–6 years. The absolute size of D, regardless of F, determined the illusional trends of both groups of children. The failure of selective attention, which facilitates size constancy, in judging length illusions seems to develop first for contour size and later for spatial distance.

show abstract

Section: Control Conditionscontrasting

confidence: 49%

supporting

confidence: 48%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Length illusions and attentional deployment

Kersten

2000

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the judgment as to whether the length of a given segment is 10,12,14,16, or 18 cm is notoriously slow and error prone (Beck, Prazdny, & Rosenfeld, 1983;Fildes & Triggs, 1985;Garner, 1962;Miller, 1956;Virsu, 1971aVirsu, , 1971b. Even these modest performance levels are challenged when the judgments have to be executed over the brief 100-ms intervals (Egeth & Pachella, 1969) that are sufficient for accurate object identification.…”

Section: Psychological Evidence For the Rapid Use Of Nonaccidental Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.

Biederman

1987

Psychological Review

4,841

143

3,801

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceptual recognition of objects is conceptualized to be a process in which the image of the input is segmented at regions of deep concavity into an arrangement of simple geometric components, such as blocks, cylinders, wedges, and cones. The fundamental assumption of the proposed theory, recognition-by-components (RBC), is that a modest set of generalized-cone components, called geons (N ^ 36), can be derived from contrasts of five readily detectable properties of edges in a two-dimensional image: curvature, collinearity, symmetry, parallelism, and cotermmation. The detection of these properties is generally invariant over viewing position and image quality and consequently allows robust object perception when the image is projected from a novel viewpoint or is degraded. RBC thus provides a principled account of the heretofore undecided relation between the classic principles of perceptual organization and pattern recognition: The constraints toward regularization (Pragnanz) characterize not the complete object but the object's components. Representational power derives from an allowance of free combinations of the geons. A Principle of Componential Recovery can account for the major phenomena of object recognition: If an arrangement of two or three geons can be recovered from the input, objects can be quickly recognized even when they are occluded, novel, rotated in depth, or extensively degraded. The results from experiments on the perception of briefly presented pictures by human observers provide empirical support for the theory.Any single object can project an infinity of image configurations to the retina. The orientation of the object to the viewer can vary continuously, each giving rise to a different two-dimensional projection. The object can be occluded by other objects or texture fields, as when viewed behind foliage. The object need not be presented as a full-colored textured image but instead can be a simplified line drawing. Moreover, the object can even be missing some of its parts or be a novel exemplar of its particular category. But it is only with rare exceptions that an image fails to be rapidly and readily classified, either as an instance of a familiar object category or as an instance that cannot be so classified (itself a form of classification). A Do-It-\burself ExampleConsider the object shown in Figure 1. We readily recognize it as one of those objects that cannot be classified into a familiar category. Despite its overall unfamiliarity, there is near unanimity in its descriptions. We parse-or segment-its parts at regions of deep concavity and describe those parts with common, simple volumetric terms, such as "a block," "a cylinder" "a funnel or truncated cone." We can look at the zig-zag horizontal brace as a texture region or zoom in and interpret it as a series of connected blocks. The same is true of the mass at the lower left: we can see it as a texture area or zoom in and parse it into its various bumps.Although we know that it is not a familiar object, after a whilewe can ...

show abstract

“…The Mueller-Lyer illusion has been described as the combined result of confluxion and contrast (Heymans, 18%;Lewis, 1909;Muller-Lyer, 18%a, 1896b;Pieron, 1911;Virsu, 1967), and this two-factor theory is particularly favored by those who have considered the quantitative data. The two opposing factors of confluxion and contrast can be defined at various levels of processing of the stimulus, and have different implications, depending on the level.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%