Visual field differences in the magnitude of the Oppel-Kundt illusion vary with processing time

Rothwell, Bart; Zaidel, Eran

doi:10.3758/bf03205982

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On average, the configurations in which the vertical line is a given distance to the right of the center induce smaller illusions than those with the vertical line at the same distance to the left of the center (t test; p Ͻ .05). This asymmetry might reflect the dominance of the right hemisphere in illusion perception and is consistent with results reported for the Müller-Lyer, Ponzo, Oppel-Kundt, and herringbone illusions under some conditions (Houlard, Fraisse, & Hecaen, 1976;Rasmjou, Hausmann, & Gün-türkün, 1999;Rothwell & Zaidel, 1990). However, we have no basis to claim that the asymmetries in these studies and in ours share any common mechanism.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Distortions of perceived length in the frontoparallel plane: Tests of perspective theories

Wolfe

Maloney

Tam

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceived length of a line segment in a frontoparallel plane is sometimes affected by the presence of other line segments in the visual field. Perspective theories attribute such interactions to sizeconstancy scaling: The configuration of line segments present in the visual field includes depth cues that trigger size scaling of each line segment. In three experiments, we test this claim for a range of simple configurations composed of two line segments joined at a point. These configurations include the inverted T configuration of the bisection illusion, as well as the L configuration of the horizontalvertical illusion. We conclude that the available depth cues, even when supplemented by known biases in perspective interpretations, do not account for observed distortions in judgments of relative length.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Distortions of perceived length in the frontoparallel plane: Tests of perspective theories

Wolfe

Maloney

Tam

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there is uncertainty in relation to cerebral dominance for illusions (Grabowska et al, 1992), there does seem to be some evidence for hemispheric specialisation for illusions related to length (Clem & Pollack, 1975). The current research supports the idea of right hemisphere susceptibility to illusions-speciWcally illusions related to length (Clem & Pollack, 1975;Rasmjou et al, 1999;Rothwell & Zaidel, 1990).…”

Section: Response Bias (%)supporting

confidence: 76%

“…For example, Rasmjou, Hausmann, and Güntürkün (1999) reported a stronger Herringbone illusion for the right hemisphere-but only for males. Rothwell and Zaidel (1990) also observed a stronger OppelKundt illusion for left visual Weld/right hemisphere trialsbut only for simultaneous presentations. In contrast, Grabowska, Szymanska, Nowickam, and Kwiecien (1992) found that left-and right-hemisphere lesions did not diVerentially aVect susceptibility to the Ponzo, Ehrenstein-Orbison, PoggendorV and Zoellner illusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…DiVerences in the degree of asymmetry from the baseline are common within the perceptual literature (Loftus, Nicholls, Mattingley, & Bradshaw, 2008;Nicholls & Roberts, 2002) and may reXect Xoor or ceiling eVects for the behaviour or the pattern of hemispheric dominance when viewing is not lateralised. The asymmetry between the hemispaces may reXect a greater sensitivity to illusory eVects in the right hemisphere (see, Clem & Pollack, 1975;Rasmjou et al, 1999;Rothwell & Zaidel, 1990). As a result, the HVI was stronger overall for left hemispace conditions, because that side of space is preferentially processed by the right hemisphere (Corbetta, Miezin, Shulman, & Petersen, 1993).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Although the literature is not conclusive, there is some suggestion that the right hemisphere is more prone to geometric visual illusions (Clem & Pollack, 1975;Rasmjou et al, 1999;Rothwell & Zaidel, 1990). If this is the case, the HVI should be stronger for presentations to the left hemispace compared to the right hemispace.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Left of centre: asymmetries for the horizontal vertical line illusion

Josev

Forte

Nicholls

2010

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the mechanisms that underlie asymmetries for the horizontal vertical illusion (HVI), which deceives length perception, so that a vertical line is perceived as longer than a horizontal line of equivalent length. In Experiment 1, university students (n = 14) made length judgements for vertical and horizontal lines. The vertical line was shifted in eight steps from the far left of the horizontal line (⌊) to the far right (⌋). An HVI was observed for the medial positions (⊥), which diminished towards the lateral positions. The HVI was also stronger when the vertical line was on the left. Because the left/right asymmetry changed as a function of lateral/medial position, the asymmetry within the HVI stimulus is most likely the result of pseudoneglect, which affects judgements of horizontal length. In Experiment 2, participants (n = 15) made judgements for HVI stimuli presented to the left- and right-hemispace and the midline. The HVI was stronger in the left hemispace. Because the asymmetry between the left- and right-hemispaces did not interact with the asymmetry within the stimuli, it was concluded that the asymmetry between hemispatial positions was the result of right hemisphere susceptibility to illusory geometrical effects whereas the asymmetry within the stimulus is related to an object-centred attentional asymmetry. The HVI is affected by asymmetries in length judgements and susceptibility to illusions and may provide interesting insights into attentional disorders in clinical populations, such as neglect.

show abstract

The Ebbinghaus illusion with small inducers appears larger on the right side

Saneyoshi

2018

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of left and right alignment on the Ebbinghaus illusion were investigated in three experiments. In Experiment 1, the Ebbinghaus illusion was presented on the left or right side, and the points of subjective equality (PSE) were measured. Only the central disk of the figure with small inducers was perceived larger when it was positioned on the right side rather than on the left. In Experiments 2 and 3, left, right, and central placement were used to determine if the results of Experiment 1 were caused by a decrease of the illusion on the left side or an increase of the illusion on the right side. There was no difference in the illusion effect between the left and the center; however, the illusion effect increased when the figure was presented on the right side. These results suggest that a hemispheric asymmetry for global and local spatial attention influences the laterality of the Ebbinghaus illusion.

show abstract

Visual field differences in the magnitude of the Oppel-Kundt illusion vary with processing time

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Distortions of perceived length in the frontoparallel plane: Tests of perspective theories

Distortions of perceived length in the frontoparallel plane: Tests of perspective theories

Left of centre: asymmetries for the horizontal vertical line illusion

The Ebbinghaus illusion with small inducers appears larger on the right side

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About