Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distortions in length perception: Visual field anisotropy and geometrical illusions

  • Published:
Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Psychometric experiments were performed to study the effects of visual field anisotropy and geometrical illusions on the accuracy of comparison of objects in terms of length. Stimuli consisting of V-shaped symbols were used, made up of three light spots or one spot plus components of illusory figures, which were pairs of Müller-Layer wings or an interval of the Oppel-Kundt figure filled with spots of light. Relationships between the length comparison errors and the orientations of the reference and test parts of the stimulus were obtained. The experimental data showed that the simultaneous appearance of illusions and visual field anisotropy can be summed algebraically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. A. I. Bertulis and V. D. Glezer, Spatial Color Vision [in Russian], Nauka, Leningrad (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Bulatov. A. Bertulis, and I. Kochanie, “Studies of size discrimination depending on stimulus orientation,” Sensor. Sistemy, 10, No.4, 28–43 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Bulatov, A. Bertulis, and N. Bulatova, “Discrimination of right ankles,” Fiziol. Cheloveka (in press).

  4. A. Bulatov, A. Bertulis, and V. Strogonov, “Distortion of length perception when two images are superimposed,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 27, No.3, 22–31 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. N. Bulatov, A. V. Bertulis, and L. I. Mitskene, “Quantitative studies of geometrical illusions, ” Sensor. Sistemy, 9, No.2–3, 79–93 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  6. V. D. Glezer, Vision and Thought, Nauka, Leningrad (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. P. Andrews, “Perception of contour orientation in the central fovea. Part I. Short lines,” Vision Res., 7, 975–997 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. P. Andrews, “Perception of contour orientation in the central fovea. Part II. Spatial integration, ” Vision Res., 7, 999–1013 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Appelle, “Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation. The ‘oblique effect’ in man and animals,” Psychol. Bull., 78, 266 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Bertulis, J. Kocaniene, and A. Bulatov, “Length judgement as a function of stimulus position in the visual field,” Perception, 25, Supplement, 116 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Bertulis and A. Bulatov, “Distortions of length perception in human vision,” Biomedicine (Lithuania), 1, 1 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. A. Betts and I. S. Curthoys, “Visually perceived vertical and visually perceived horizontal are not orthogonal,” Vision Res., 38, 1989–1999 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. T. Brown, “Factors affecting differences in apparent size between opposite halves of a visual meridian,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 43, 464–472 (1953).

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. M. Buchanan-Smith and D. W. Heeley, “Anisotropic axes in orientation perception are not retinotopically mapped,” Perception, 22, 1389–1402 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Bulatov and A. Bertulis, “Distortions of length perception,” Biol. Cybern., 80, 185–193 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Bulatov, A. Bertulis, and J. Kocaniene, “Visual field anisotropy modeling based on nonhomogeneity of cortical magnification factor (nMF),” Perception, 25, Supplement, 84 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Bulatov, A. Bertulis, and L. Mickiene, “Geometrical illusions: study and modeling,” Biol. Cybern., 77, 395–406 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Caelli, “Is perceived length affected by interactions between orientation detectors?” Vision Res., 17, 837–841 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. Coren and P. Hoening, “Effect of non-target stimuli upon length of voluntary saccades,” Percept. Mot Skills, 34, 499–508 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. H. Day, “Visual spatial illusions. A general explanation,” Science, 175, 1335–1340 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. G. H. Eijkman, H. J. Jongsma, and J. Vincent, “Two-dimensional filtering, oriented line detectors, and figural aspects as determinants of visual illusions,” Percept. Psychophys., 29, 352–358 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. Festinger, C. W. White, and M. R. Allyn, “Eye movements and decrement in the Müller-Lyer illusion,” Percept. Psychophysiol., 3, 376–382 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. A. Gould, “A note on inappropriate constancy-scaling and the Müller-Lyer illusion,” Brit. J. Psychol., 66, 307–309 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  24. B. Gillam, “Geometrical illusions,” Sci. Amer., 242, 102–111 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. P. Ginsburg, “Spatial filtering and visual form perception,” in: Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, K. R. Boff, L. Koufman, and J. P. Thomas (eds.), Wiley, New York (1986), pp. 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. P. Ginsburg, “Visual form perception based on biological filtering,“ in: Sensory Experience, Adaptation and Perception,L. Spilman and G. R. Wooten (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New York (1984), pp. 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. L. Gregory, The Intelligent Eye, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. L. Gregory, “Illusory contours. Physiological or cognitive?” Nature, 238, 51–52 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. L. Gregory, “Visual illusions,” Sci. Amer., 219, 66–67 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  30. D. W. Heeley and B. Timney, “Meridional anisotropies of orientation discrimination for sine wave gratings,” Vision Res., 28, 337–344 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  31. D. W. Heeley and H. M. Buchanan-Smith, “Mechanisms specialized for the perception of image geometry, ” Vision Res., 36, 3607–3627 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  32. H. Helson, Adaptation-Level Theory, Harper & Row, New York (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. Kaufman and W. Richards, “Spontaneous fixation tendencies for visual forms,” Percept. Psychophys., 5, 85–88 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  34. N. Kawabata, “Mathematical analysis of the visual illusion,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 6, 818–824 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  35. G. Lester, “Size constancy scaling and the apparent thickness of the shaft in the Müller-Lyer illusion,” J. Gen. Psychol., 97, 307–308 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  36. R. J. W. Mansfield, “Neural basis of orientation preference in primates,” Science New York, 186, 1133–1135 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. J. W. Mansfield and S. F. Bonner, “Orientation anisotropy in monkey visual cortex,” Brain Res., 149, 229–234 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  38. S. C. McLaughlin, M. J. De Sisto, and M. J. Kelley, “Comment on ‘Eye movement and decrement in the Mü ller-Lyer illusion’,” Percept. Psychophys., 5, 28 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  39. M. J. Morgan, “Hyperacuity,” in: Spatial Vision, D. Regan (ed.), McGraw-Hill, London (1991), Vol. 10, pp. 87–113.

    Google Scholar 

  40. G. A. Orban and H. Kennedy, “The influence of eccentricity on receptive field types and orientational selectivity in areas 17 and 18 of the cat,” Brain Res., 208, 203–208 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  41. G. A. Orban, E. Vandenbussche, and R. Vogels, “Human orientation discrimination tested with long stimuli,” Vision Res., 24, 121–128 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  42. G. A. Orban, E. Vandenbussche, and R. Vogels, “Meridional variations and properties suggesting that acuity and orientation discrimination rely on different neuronal mechanisms,” Physiol. Optics, 4, 89, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  43. A. W. Pressey and M. Bross, “Assimilation theory and the reversed Müller-Lyer illusion,” Perception, 2, 211–217 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  44. A. W. ressey, N. Butchard, and L. Scrivner, “Assimilation theory and Ponzo illusion. Quantitative predictions,” Canad. J. Psychol., 2, 486–497 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  45. A. W. Pressey and V. Di Lillo, “Effects of distance between standard and comparison lines on the Müller-Lyer illusion,” Percept. Psychophysiol., 24, 415–419 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  46. D. Regan and P. Price, “Periodicity in orientation discrimination and the unconfounding of visual information,” Vision Res., 26, 1299–1302 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  47. F. Restle, “Assimilation produced by contrast,” in: Cognitive Theory, N. J. Castellan and F. Restle (eds.), Erlbaum, N.J. (1977), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  48. F. Restle, “Visual illusions,” in: Adaptation Level Theory, M. H. Appley (ed.), Academic Press, New York (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  49. F. Restle and J. Decker, “Size of the Mü ller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions. Theory and data,” Percept. Psychophysiol., 21, 489–503 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  50. F. Restle and C. T. Merryman, “An adaptation theory account of a relative-size illusion,” Psychonomic Science, 12, 229–230 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  51. I. Rock and R. Anson, “Illusory contours as the solution to a problem,” Perception, 8, 665–681 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  52. R. Gusso and A. Dellantonio, “Influence of phenomenon time on perceived space,” Percept. Mot. Skills, 68, 971–984 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  53. D. A. Smith, “A descriptive model for perception of optical illusions,” J. Mathemat. Psychol., 17, 64–85 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  54. K. Suzuki and R. Arashida, “Geometrical haptic illusions revisited: haptic illusions compared with visual illnesses,” Percept. Psychophysiol., 52, 329–335 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  55. V. Virsu, “Tendencies to eye movement, and misperception of curvature, direction, and length,” Percept Psychophys., 9, 65–72 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  56. E. H. Walker, “A mathematical theory of optical illusions and figural aftereffects,” Percept. Psychophys., 13, 467–486 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  57. L. M. Ward, C. Porac, S. Coren, and J. S. Gingus, “The case of misapplied constancy scaling. Depth associations elicited by illusion configurations,” Amer. J. Physiol., 90, 604–620 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kaunas Medical University, 9 Mitskyavichaus, 3000, Kaunas, Lithuania

    A. Bertulis & A. Bulatov

Authors
  1. A. Bertulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Bulatov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Translated from Rossiiskii Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal imeni I. M. Sechenova, Vol. 89, No. 10, pp. 1265–1280, October, 2003.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bertulis, A., Bulatov, A. Distortions in length perception: Visual field anisotropy and geometrical illusions. Neurosci Behav Physiol 35, 423–434 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-005-0043-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-005-0043-z

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation