GEOMETRICAL VISUAL ILLUSIONS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO GEOMETRIC VISUAL ILLUSIONS

AND SHAPE PERCEPTION

Jacques NINIO

Included in the web site http://www.lps.ens.fr/~ninio

return to Ninio's home page

Illustration supplement (pdf)

TOPICS DISCUSSED HERE

1. Overview

2. Theoretical work on geometrical illusions

3. Experimental work on geometrical illusions (to be completed)

4. Shape perception (in preparation)

5. Cited references

6. Further references.

SEE IN OTHER SECTIONS

Zöllner and other illusions in stereo (in Chapter on stereoscopic vision)

The “depth from illusory disparities” issue (in Chapter on stereoscopic vision)

==============================================

1. OVERVIEW

My position in the field of geometrical visual illusions is very strange, to say the least. It Is a domain to which I devoted intense thinking in 1975-1976, and in which I performed rather systematic psychophysical work, from 1995 to 2004, most of which is still in my drawers. I also designed original stimuli showing counter-intuitive effects (for instance, a diamond looking too small compared to a square of equal size – see Fig. 3 in the Illustration supplement). I kicked off a well-known illusion (the so-called flattening of short arcs), showing that it is definitely not an illusion (Appendix A in Ninio, 1979), I announced a paradoxical result which should have interested neuro-philosophers: two trapeziums, one above the other can never be made perceptually equal (when the wide bases look equal, the small bases don’t, etc.). Technically, I made a number of strong statements, based upon psychophysical work, about which types of deformations account best for the illusions: For instance, the Zöllner illusion, considered with all its variants, is best described in terms of an expansion at right angles to the oblique segments, while the Poggendorff and related illusions are best described by misangulation biases. The Müller-Lyer illusion, and a large number of illusions which are not usually found in its company are best described with a “convexity rule” (for the layman, take it provisionally as a law of contrast: “small looks smaller, large looks larger”), which is quite different from the often invoked assimilation effect. I also established a number of other points, which are detailed below. All this has been largely unnoticed. Perhaps I failed to make my findings intelligible to my colleagues, and perhaps putting it all together in this web chapter will make my work more obvious.

It is through visual illusions that I started to work thoroughly on visual perception. In 1975, I was a full-time molecular biologist having developed a quantitative understanding of how errors could arise in molecular processes (Ninio, 1974, 1975). I contemplated the possibility of extending such analyses to other domains. I bought two books which played an important role: The Intelligent Eye by Richard Gregory (Gregory, 1970), who shaped my way of thinking about perception and The Psychology of Visual illusion by J.O. Robinson (Robinson, 1972), which presented the geometrical illusions in an exhaustive manner, and provided a critical account of all the scientific literature on the subject. It seemed to me, reading the two books, that so far, geometrical visual illusions had not been treated in a geometrically insightful way.

Some very elementary geometric truths may be counter-intuitive. A good example is the fact that if you take planar sections of a circular cone, you get a circle, an ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola depending upon the orientation of the plane with respect to the axis of the cone. Therefore, any of these curves can be thought of as the projection of any other of these curves, and this knowledge has practical value, for it allows a geometer to predict some properties of hyperbolas, knowing proven properties of ellipses.

This is not to say that an ellipse or a hyperbola should be perceptually equivalent. However, it may be the case that some strange aspects of 2d shape perception, as revealed by geometric visual illusions are just “legal” but counter-intuitive outcomes of the internal rules used by the brain for performing geometry. I spent several months scrutinizing the geometrical illusions in J.O. Robinson’s book, trying to extract their gist. The illusions were grouped into chapters. This amounted to a formal classification of the illusions. What if some illusions had been misplaced? I considered that a good “objective” classification of the illusions was crucial. The analogy I had in mind was Darwin’s theory of evolution, which was greatly facilitated by Linneus’ systematic classification work. We learnt from Linneus that the most obvious characters are not necessarily the most relevant ones to understand the relatedness between living organisms. Some hidden subtle characters may turn out to be far more relevant. Thus, a dolphin is much closer to land mammals than to fishes, and a bird is closer to a penguin or even a snake than to a flying insect. A very common attribution error in geometric illusions is related to the horizontal-vertical illusion, often illustrated with a letter T, having two segments of equal lengths, the horizontal one looking shorter than the vertical one. Here, most of the illusory effect comes from the fact that the horizontal segment is split in two due to its intersection with the vertical segment (bisection illusion – I have some psychophysical data showing this).

The more I was looking at illusions, the more they reduced to simple inequalities, such as “if there are two segments a and b in a figure with a larger than b, then the a/b ratio is perceptually increased”. Psychologists would call this a law of contrast enhancement. Curiously, I had to invoke a law of this kind mostly in the situations which were previously explained in terms of assimilation, which is nearly the opposite principle. I derived a few principles, which were “pulling in different directions”, yet could work together, and could be embodied into a coherent framework. This theoretical work was ultimately published in 1979 (Ninio, 1979). There were a number of quite good insights in this work, which led me to fruitful developments later, and there was at least one attribution error: I sought to explain the Poggendorff illusion by a metric effect, whereas in the light of my more recent work, I clearly classify it as a misangulation effect.

One published result attracted my attention. Bela Julesz had shown that most geometrical illusions are maintained when they are presented as random-dot stereograms, the Zöllner illusion being the only notable exception (Julesz, 1972). Seymour Papert had shown earlier that the Müller-Lyer illusion was maintained in camouflaged stereograms (Papert, 1961).Thus, it seemed, stereoscopic vision provided an objective way to classify the illusions into two groups. A first group containing most illusions would occur late in visual processing, after the stage in which the streams from the two eyes are usually combined to provide stereoscopic interpretation. The shape giving rise to the geometric illusion does not exist prior to this stage, since it is, by design, monocularly undetectable. Contradistinctively the Zöllner illusion is destroyed when camouflaged in the form of random-dot stereograms. So, it seemed, it arises rather early in visual processing, before the stage at which the streams from the two eyes are normally combined. (I proved much later that this reasoning was based on an incorrect hidden assumption - Ninio and Herbomel, 1990). In any event it seemed to me at that time that stereoscopic vision provided a criterion for an objective classification of geometric illusions, and I thus started to think about the geometric problems of stereoscopic vision (see the web chapter on stereo vision).

After moving to Ecole Normale Supérieure, I started doing some psychophysical measurements on geometrical illusions. I knew Robinson’s book almost by heart, and followed whatever was published in Gregory’s scientific journal “Perception”, but was quite ignorant of what was published elsewhere on the topic. My first work was on Poggendorff illusion. I attempted to measure the effect on several variants at several orientations, not knowing that Weintraub had already done an excellent job (Weintraub, Krantz and Olson, 1980). I found that the misalignment effect was essentially that which could be observed in the absence of the parallels. Fortunately, I did not publish this result, which was an artefact: I had used rather long collinear segments, and in this case they are minimally deviated when they intersect the parallels of the Poggendorff figure, so what remains is the “pure misalignment” illusion, which is observed in the absence of parallels (Zehender illusion, 1899).

A few years later, I happened to have frequent discussions with Kevin O’Regan, and we decided to do some psychophysical work on the Zöllner illusion. We constructed several rather unusual variants (which people could have described as “new” illusions) , and studied the strength of the illusion at eight different orientations, and we concluded, rather firmly (Ninio and O'Regan, 1996) that (i) the illusion occurred at the level of a single stack of oblique segments (ii) the distortion was not an apparent rotation of the stack, but could be a shear, or an expansion at right angles to the obliques (iii) that the way the segments ended was not of primary importance.

At that time, both Kevin and I were also working on memory, but independently. Kevin published his seminal paper on change blindness (Rensink, O'Regan and Clark, 1997). I was involved in precise determinations of the capacity of visual memory (Brunel and Ninio, 1997; Ninio, 1998). We found nevertheless the time to pursue the work on geometrical illusions. This time we performed extensive work on the Poggendorff illusion and several of its variants, including the corner-Poggendorff variant (Greene, 1988). We did not invent any new pattern, but performed rather systematic measurements, which allowed us to separate the measured illusory effect into two components (Ninio and O'Regan, 1999): a minor one, the pure misalignment illusion, and a major one, which was clearly a misangulation effect (contrary to my theory in Ninio, 1979). We could also make sense of why the illusion was weak in some patterns (the corner-Poggendorff), and rather strong in others (a Weintraub variant in which a segment is not collinear with another segment, but with a dot).

Kevin then started taking responsibilities as director of the Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, and I continued the work alone. (Why, within the French context, I could not have students working with me is another story). I designed and carried out to the end several series of psychophysical measurements, along the same lines as the Poggendorff work: many related stimuli, studied at 8 or 16 different orientations, 10 subjects, each subject going through a whole series ten times. I thus obtained results on the horizontal-vertical illusions, the square-diamond illusions, the trapezium illusions, the Müller-Lyer illusions. I also studied hybrids between Poggendorff and Zöllner. I did not attempt yet to publish the results. However, I made some salient conclusions leak in various places.

In 2002, I attended the 25th ECVP in Glasgow, organized by Pascal Mamassian. I became acquainted there with Baingio Pinna, with whom I immediately sympathized. He showed me a collection of perhaps 50 or 100 of his yet unpublished illusory patterns, and I went through them one by one, trying to form an opinion on what could be reduced to previously known effects, and what was really puzzling. Among the geometrical effects, I was struck by two drawings. One was a marvellous variant of the Müller-Lyer illusion, which flatly contradicted all published theories of the illusion, except mine: the illusion of the diagonal (later published in Pinna, 2003, Fig. 14-17). Another one represented squares, which, in the neighbourhood of oblique segments, appeared as trapeziums. I also had, among my unpublished patterns, a distorted square illusion. In both cases, two families of inducing segments or inducing lines at nearly orthogonal orientations were simultaneously present, and seemed to have additive rather than subtractive effects. We put our distorted square patterns in common, and discussed them in the context of the tilt illusions. Looking at the whole set, plus some additional variants, designed on this occasion, we proposed that there was a common theme to most of these illusions, namely “orthogonal expansion” – a tendency for sets of parallel or nearly parallel lines to expand at a right angle to the lines. So, having eliminated in a first work the “rotation” description of the Zöllner illusion, I eliminated the “shear” description of the illusion in subsequent work, and am now convinced that “orthogonal expansion” is the key to these illusions.

In April or May 2007, I listened to a seminar given by Pierre Pica at the Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale in Paris. Pierre Pica is a linguist who has been spending several months every year with an Indian tribe of Amazonia, the Mundurucus. He made many puzzling observations about the structure of their language, their counting habits (Pica, Lemer, Izard and Dehaene, 2004), their fascination for symmetry, their spatial sense, their understanding of geometry (Dehaene, Izard, Pica and Spelke, 2006). I designed for him a battery of visual tests, which he embarked in his subsequent expedition in the land of the Mundurucus (dec. 2007 - July 2008). The tests were designed in such a way as to make sense for the Mundurucus, at least to the best of Pierre Pica’s knowledge. For instance, there were tests on the geometrical illusions, which I embodied as tests on the appreciation of symmetry with respect to an axis, of the two figures to be compared. It seems that the subjects took pleasure in performing these tests. Their responses to the tests were in most cases (Zöllner, Poggendorff, trapezium, Müller-Lyer, Helmholtz) very similar to those in our degenerate contemporary occidental culture. There were however two differences. One on Delboeuf illusions with circles, was expected, by analogy with previous observations in a Himba population (de Fockert et al., 2007). Another result was quite unexpected: The Mundurucus were not subject to the square/diamond illusion. This, perhaps can be related to their widespread use of diamond motifs on their body ornaments. I hope that Pierre Pica will write one day about these experiments. Although the raw data are preserved, the notebooks in which Pierre Pica was recording the circumstances of the tests were lost, so it would be hard to publish the results in a regular scientific journal.

Another encounter turned out to be quite important. Being an assiduous reader of the journal “Perception” I had noticed two very innovative illusions by Vicario, the sloping step, and the rarefaction illusions: Vicario, 1972, 1978, see also da Pos and Zambianchi, 1996 for a collection of rarely discussed illusions. A very rewarding correspondence was initiated between us. I learnt many effects from him, thanks to his unique, encyclopaedic knowledge of geometric illusions and their history.

So, what is my theory of geometrical illusions, people will ask? Actually, my main work is not centred on why there are illusions, its main focus is an attempt to determine what is the nature of the distortion in the illusion. Typically, what is the correct way to describe the Zöllner illusion: Is it a rotation of the stacks, a relative sliding of the parallel segments (shear distorsion), an increased separation between the segments (orthogonal expansion)? Once the nature of the distortion is correctly described, one can then try to find a rationale for the distortions. The explanation may be purely mechanistic, such as: inhibition between neurons having receptive fields tuned to similar orientations. I do not have the ambition to defend a particular neuronal model. It is enough to know that, in principle, there is at least one neuronal model which may account for the observations. Whatever it is, there is then hope that a more appropriate one will be found later. The explanation may also be a teleological one: there is some purpose for the observed effects. Here, my general idea is that the brain constructs some representation of shapes in which it incorporates geometrical relationships derived from visual processing, and it has to satisfy a number of constraints. The main problem, I propose, which is at the origin of geometrical illusions is the conflict between sizes or orientations, as may be derived when observing a scene with a fixed eye (which then obey the laws of linear perspective) and the sizes and orientations which can be acquired as the eyes move and explore a scene, in which case apparent (angular) sizes dominate (which then follow the laws of curvilinear perspective). How this may lead to Müller-Lyer, and so many other effects is a bit technical, but should become clear at the end. Here also, I am satisfied with the fact that there is at least one plausible teleological theory for at least one large class of illusions.

2. THEORETICAL WORK ON GEOMETRICAL ILLUSIONS

2.1 Geometrical principles underlying metric illusion.

2.1.1. Preamble.

In 1975, I spent months and months scrutinizing the illusions in Robinson’s book (Robinson, 1972), trying to extract the basic geometrical rules behind these. The book often showed several variants of each illusion, and this protected me from expeditious erroneous generalizations. For instance, people who encounter the Müller-Lyer illusion for the first time are seized with amazement, then they say “of course, this illusion is due to the arrows”. It was very clear, from the examples in Robinson’s book, that the arrows in the Müller-Lyer pattern may be replaced by squares, circles, or by almost any shape without damage to the illusory effect.

My main working assuption was that the brain was constructing a representation of a scene, in the same spirit with which a geometer constructs a geographical map: Measurements are taken from one landmark to another, with more or less reliable instruments, according to well-defined procedures, then the measurements are combined according to well-defined rules. The resulting representation may appear distorted but the distorsions are not necessarily due to carelessness. These are due to fundamental constraints. In the case of geographical maps, there is the constraint of representing a portion of spherical surface on a planar one. I considered that the brain also had to construct a kind of map, combining distance and orientation measurements taken with its neuronal instruments. One of the instruments would provide measurements that were biased in a systematic way, the brain would combine the measurements and apply corrective factors. In the end, a rather satisfactory representation would be constructed, except in a few cases.

2.1.2. The convexity principle.

I focused on extent illusions and found several geometrical themes, which turned out to be related. Imagine that the measure of an extent x is a function m(x). Many illusions can be accounted for by a rule of contrast: There are two segments of lengths a and b, with b larger than a, and the figure is perceptually distorted in such a way that the contrast between b and a is increased, which can be spelled out as:

m(b) / m(a) is larger than b / a if b is larger then a (1)

An assimilation effect would be just the opposite, m(b) / m(a) would be closer to one than b / a.

If you add the obvious property that m(0) = 0 (the measure of a null extent is zero), then relation (1) is true for any convex function m(x) going through the origin – a function which instead of being linear, rises with a curvature of constant sign (See Fig. 1 in the illustration supplement).

This rule of contrast, or “convexity” applies in an obvious way to patterns such as the “contrast illusion” with arcs shown in Fig. 2 of the illustration supplement, which is not a “best-selling” illusions. As an application of the principle, I designed the original pattern with four circles in Fig. 9 of the illustration supplement. Many more illusions, presented later in this section, seem to support the convexity principle.

The convexity priniple also applies to an apparently unrelated illusion, the bisection illusion (Fig. 12 in the illustration supplement). Here, you can admire the power of mathematics, because if Eq. (1) is true and m(0) = 0, then:

m(a+b) > m(a) + m(b) (2)

And in particular, m(2a) > 2m(a) (2a).

Actually, there are two sides to the bisection illusion. The known part of it is that the subdivided segment looks smaller than the undivided one. The hidden part of the illusion is that, paradoxically, an isolated half segment looks smaller than half the subdivided segment (Fig. 12 in the illustration supplement). According to my analysis, the real illusion, expressed by Eq. (2a) is the fact that a full undivided segment looks more than twice as long as an isolated half. However, this is not perceived as an illusion. See again Fig. 12.

I have subreptitiously used here a subsidiary principle, which is a principle of compromise: If measurements are in conflict, then a compromise is made. The Müller-Lyer illusion can be analysed in terms of convexity + compromise principles (See Fig. 6 - 8 in the illustration supplement).

Recently, Baingio Pinna produced the “illusion of the diagonal”, which I think is an excellent illustration of the convexity principle (See Fig. 4 in the illustration supplement). By adding an arrowhead to the diagonal, one obtains a “reversed Müller-Lyer” effect – a figure in which a shaft with an ingoing finn appears larger than expected. The convexity principle accounts in one stroke for the standard Müller-Lyer and the reverse Pinna variant, as it explained in one stroke the standard and the reverse bisection illusion. Kennedy, Orach and Löffler (2008) recently produced an illusion with triangles (See Fig. 11 in the illustration suplement) which they christened “isocele/scalene triangle illusion”. In this Fig. 11, I explain with a geometrical construction how tthis effect can be deduced from the convexity principle. The “gravity lens illusion” by Naito and Cole (1994) also seems to me to be predictable by the convexity principle (Fig. 7 in the illustration supplement).

In order to illustrate the convexity principle, I designed a paradoxical figure with squares and diamonds, showing that the convexity effect is stronger than the square-diamond illusion. It was included in The science of illusions (Ninio, 1998). My claim is supported by yet unpublished psychophysical data. It is reproduced here in Fig. 3 of the illustration supplement. A simplified version is shown in Fig. 5 of the supplement.

So, the convexity principle seems to be at work in many apparently unrelated illusory patterns. It allows one to construct patterns which seem to contradict well-known effects, including the bisection illusion, the square-diamond illusion, or the Müller-Lyer illusion.

In my early work (Ninio, 1979), I used the convexity principle to explain the Poggendorff illusion, but I am now convinced that the explanation was incorrect (see section on Poggendorff below).

While a large number of illusions were described in terms of a convexity rule, a number of other illusions seemed to go in the opposite direction, and these required two subsidiary principles: A principle about the effect of subdividing a figure, and a principle about the space occupied by the figure. Both acted as corrective terms to the convexity principle. I shall examine the two subsidiary principles in turn.

2.1.3 The subdivision rule.

If we follow the logic of the convexity principle, and partition a figure in 2, 3, 4 ot more parts, the higher the number of subdivisions, the more it should appear contracted. Actually the effect is clearly observed only for n = 2 (bisection illusion). Starting with n = 4 we have clearly the opposite trend, an expansion of subdivided figure, as obseved for instance in Helmholtz squares illusions. So, I introduced a “subdivision principle” according to which there is an expansion effect on subdivided figures, the magnitude of the effect depending upon the number of subdivisions. Combining the convexity with the subdivision principle is mathematically possible. One can get both an overall contraction effect for n = 2 and an overall expansion effect for n > 3, as I showed in (Ninio, 1979). I was recently led to reexamine this principle, in the light of the Zöllner and other tilt illusions (Ninio and Pinna, 2006), as will be explained later. See also Fig. 14 in the illustration supplement.

2.1.4 The space occupation rule.

A number of geometric illusions(including Titchener’s circles and the Ponzo illusion) clearly could not be accounted for by a combination of the convexity and the subdivision principles. I needed to add a “space-occupation” rule according to which a size normalization factor is applied to all figures. The large ones are perceptually reduced, and the small ones are perceptually enlarged. In this way, illusions which are clasically explained by a contrast effect are reinterpreted in terms of an almost opposite principle. It seems that my principle accounts better for some subtle effects (See Fig. 13 in the illustration supplement).

2.1.5 Pending problems.

Still, problems remain with a number of patterns (many of them recently excavated by Giovani Vicario), which are not predicted correctly. The convexity principle and the space-occupation rule pull in opposite directions, so there is a trade-off problem.

It seems that convexity applies to metric relations within a figure (e.g., Müller-Lyer, Sander).

The space-occupation rule works well when comparing two similar, complex figures (e.g., Titchener's circles).

The other cases: dissimilar, simple figures and figures with internal similar parts are less obvious.

-------

An algorithm that generates a large number of geometric visual illusions.

Ninio, J. (1979) Journal of Theoretical Biology 167-201.

ABSTRACT

An algorithm is described which, starting with any geometrical figure, constructs a representation in which the deviations from the model coincide with the known perceptual distorsions. First, the algorithm specifies a measurement process: drawing a straight line across the figure and measuring the encountered segments, assigning to every segment of length x its measure m(x). Next, the measures taken along a line D are corrected with a normalizing factor N(D) which is a function of the measures made on this line. Finally, a representation of the analysed figure is constructed, using for every segment its normalised length n(x)=m(x).N(D), instead of its actual length.

It is first established that within this general framework, a large number of illusions can be immediately predicted by specifying a property of the measure or of the norm. Only four properties are required to justify most illusions. They are (1) and (2) m(x) and n(x) must be convex functions (3) the norm must increase with the number of segments measured on a line (4) the norm must decrease when the average segment on a line increases in length. It is then shown that the four requirements, conflicting as they may be in some circumstances, can nevertheless be condensed into one single expression of n(x). This simple formula predicts a large number of widely different illusions (Delboeuf, Titchener, Ponzo, trapeze, Müller-Lyer, flattening of short arcs, etc). It permits to predict new illusions and new effects in old illusions, but fails to predict the Zöllner illusion, and the reversal of the Müller-Lyer illusion when the outgoing finns are becoming very large.

--------

Orthogonal expansion: a neglected factor in tilt illusions.

Ninio, J. and Pinna, B. (2006) Psychologia 49, 23-37.

ABSTRACT

A broad collection of illusions belonging to the Zöllner and the Poggendorff families, including new variants - in particular, tilted and tilting squares - are examined in the light of two possible formal principles : a principle of regression to right angles (RRA) and a principle of "orthogonal expansion", which is a perceptual expansion of the extent perpendicularly to the inducing lines. The domains of validity of the two principles are compared. We propose that RRA is more pertinent when the target line is explicitely present and makes real intersections with the inducing lines. Orthogonal expansion can produce RRA as a side-effect. It would be more pertinent when there are several parallel or nearly parallel inducing lines, and it does not require the presence of a real target. Both principles may be grounded on neurophysiological mechanisms. Orientation detectors would influence each other in the orientation domain, generating RRA and accounting for the illusions of the Poggendorff family. They would also influence each other in the extent domain, generating orthogonal expansion, and accounting for the illusions of the Zöllner family.

-----------

3. EXPERIMENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS

(To be completed)

The half - Zöllner illusion

Ninio, J. and O’Regan, J.K. (1996) Perception 25, 77-94.

ABSTRACT

The Zöllner figure contains stacks of short parallel segments oriented obliquely to the direction of the stack. Adjacent parallel stacks od opposite polarity seem to diverge where their top segments form an arrowhead. To probe whether or not the opposite polarities are necessary to the illusion, three ‘half-Zöllner’ configurations were designed, containing stacks of a single polarity. The ‘orientation profile’ of these configurations was studied, that is, the way the strength of the perceived illusion varies with the orientation of the stacks. The subjects had to align two stacks or align stacks with target segments situated at a slight distance from them. All three half-Zöllner configurations produced errors that could be assimilated to global-orientation misjudgments. These errors were of opposite sign for the two types of stacks and varied with the orientation of the stacks as in the standard Zöllner illusion.

A further study was conducted in which the effects of several configurational parameters was explored for a single observer. The standard Zöllner illusion increases with the separation of the stacks. The illusion is also increased when the orientations of the segments in different stacks are orthogonal, independently of the particular longitudinal orientations of the stacks.

When the ends of the short segments are curved so that at their endpoints they become precisely perpendicular to the axis of the stacks, the standard and half-Zöllner illusions are reduced, but not abolished. Therefore, they cannot be entirely accounted for by a mechanism of algnment of illusory contours generated at these endpoints.

The results are consistent with the existence of a single common mechanism at work in both the standard and the half-Zöllner illusion. It is suggested that the illusion itself is not a rotation of the stacks but either a shear deformation in which the segments of the stack slide with respect to one another, or an expansion of the stacks orthogonally to the segments.

----------

Characterization of the misalignment and misangulation components in the Poggendorff and corner-Poggendorff illusions.

Ninio, J. and O’Regan, J. K. (1999) Perception 28, 949-964.

ABSTRACT

In the Poggendorff illusion, two colinear segments abutting obliquely on an intervening configuration (often consisting of two long parallel lines) appear misaligned. We report here the results of a component analysis of the illusion and several of its variants, including in particular the "corner Poggendorff" illusion, and variants with a single arm. Using a nulling method, we determined an "orientation profile" of each configuration, that is, how the illusions varied as the configuration was rotated in the plane of the display. We were able to characterize a pure misalignment component (having peaks and dips around the ±22.5 degree and ±67.5 degree orientations of the arms) and a pure misangulation component of constant sign, having peaks at the ±45 orientations of the arms. Both these components were present in both the classic and the corner Poggendorff configurations. Thus, the misangulation component appears clearly in the classic Poggendorff illusion, once the misalignment component is partitioned out. Similarly, the corner Poggendorff configuration, which essentially estimates a misangulation component, contains a misalignment component which becomes apparent once the misangulation is nulled. While our analysis accounts for much of the variability in the shapes of the profiles, additional assumptions must be made to explain the relatively small misangulation measured in the corner-Poggendorff configuration (1.5 degrees, on average, at peak value), and the relatively large illusion measured in the configurations with a single arm (above 6 degrees, on average, at peak values). We invoke the notion that parallelism and colinearity detectors provide counteracting cues, the first class reducing misangulation in the corner-Poggendorff configuration, and the second class reducing the illusion in the Poggendorff configurations with two arms.

4. SHAPE PERCEPTION

(In preparation).

5. CITED REFERENCES

Brunel, N. and Ninio, J. (1997) Time to detect the difference between two images presented side by side. Cognitive Brain Research 5, 273-282.

Da Pos, O. et Zambianchi, E, eds. (1996) Visual illusions and effects - A collection. Guerini Studio, Milan.

de Fockert, J., Davidoff, J., Fagot, J., Parron, C. and Goldstein, J. (2007) Accurate size contrast judgements in the Ebbinghaus illusion by a remote culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33, 738-742.

Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Pica, P. and Spelke, E. (2006) Core knowledge of geometry in an amazonian indigene group. Science 311, 381-384.

Greene, E, 1988 "The corner Poggendorff" Perception 17, 65-70

Gregory, R. (1970) The Intelligent Eye. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.`

Julesz, B. (1972) Foundations of Cyclopean Perception. Chicago Univrsity Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Kennedy, G.J., Orbach, H.S. and Löffler, G. (2008) Global shape versus local feature: An angle illusion. Visoin Research 48, 1281-1289.

Naito, S. and Cole, J.B. (1994) The gravity lens illusion and its mathematical model. In Contributions to Mathematical Psychology, Psychometrics and Methodology (G.H. Fischer abd D. Laming, Eds). Springer-Verlag, New-York, pp. 39-50.

95.

Ninio, J. (1974) . A semi-quantitative treatment of missense and nonsense suppression in the strA and ram ribosomal mutants of Escherichia coli . Evaluation of some molecular parameters of translation in vivo. J. Mol. Biol. 84, 297-313.

Ninio, J. (1975) Kinetic amplification of enzyme discrimination. Biochimie 57, 587-595.

Ninio, J. (1998) Acquisition of shape information in working memory, as a function of viewing time and number of consecutive images : evidence for a succession of discrete storage classes. Cognitive Brain Research 7, 57-69.

Ninio, J. (1998) La science des illusions. Odile Jacob, Paris. German translation Nacht Schwarz Schlank? Gustav Kiepenhauer Verlag, Leipzig (1999) and Büchergilde Gutenberg, Frankfurt (2000). Greek translation E epistimi ton psevdaithiseon, Katoptro, Athenes. (2001). English translation The science of illusions. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (2002). Japanese translation, Shin'Yosha, Tokyo (2004).

Ninio, J. and Herbomel, P. (1990) Stereoscopic study of the Zöllner illusion. Perception 19, 362 [ECVP abstract].

Ninio, J, O’Regan, J K, 1996 "The half - Zöllner illusion" Perception 25, 77-94.

Ninio, J. et O'Regan, J.K. (1999) Characterization of the misalignment and misangulation components in the Poggendorff and corner-Poggendorff illusions. Perception 28, 949-964.

Ninio, J. et Pinna, B. (2006) Orthogonal expansion: a neglected factctor in visual illusions. Psychologia 49, 23-37.

Papert, S. (1961) Centrally produced geometrical illusions. Nature 191, 733.

Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V. and Dehaene, S. (2004) Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group 306, 499-503.

Pinna, B. (2003) Riflessioni fenomenologiche sulla percezione delle qualità emergenti: verso una riconsiderazione critica della Teoria della pregnenza. Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere 3, 211-256.

Pinna, B. (2003) Riflessione fenomenologiche sulla percezione della qualità emergenti: verso una riconsiderazione critica della Teoria della Pregnanza. Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Litterature Straniere, 3, 211-256 (Fig. 14-16).

Rensink, R.A., O'Regan, J.K. and Clark, J.J. (1997) To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science 8, 368-373.

Robinson, J.O. (1972) The psychology of visual illusions. Hutchinson University Library, London.

Vicario, G.B. (1972) Phenomenal rarefaction and visual acuity under 'illusory' conditions. Perception 1, 475-482.

Vicario, G.B. (1978) Another optical-geometrical illusion. Perception 7, 225-228.

Vicario, G B, Zambianchi, E, 1993 "The optical-geometrical illusion “ corner Poggendorff ” re-examined" Perceptual and motor skills 76, 1283-1286

Weintraub, D J, Krantz, D H, Olson, T P, 1980 "The Poggendorff illusion: consider all the angles" Journal of Experimental Psychology- Human Perception and Performance 6, 718-725

Zehender, W V, 1899 "Über geometrisch-optische Taüschungen" Zeitschrift für die Psychologie 20, 65-117.

6. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Bouma, H, Andriessen, J J, 1968 "Perceived orientation of isolated line segments" Vision Research 8, 493 – 45

Bourdon, B. (1902) La perception visuelle de l’espace. Schleicher Frères, Paris.

Bulatov, A. and Bertulis, A. (1999) Distorsions of length perception. Biological Cybernetics 80, 185-193.

Changizi, M. A., Hsieh, A., Nijhawan, R., Kanai, R. and Shimojo, S. (2008) Perceiving the present and a systematization of illusions. Cognitive Science 32, 459-503.

Chokron, S. et Imbert, M. (1993) Influence of reading habits on line bisection. Cognitive Brain Research 1, 219-222.

Coren, S. et Girgus, J.S. (1978) Seeing is deceiving. The psychology of visual illusions. Erlbaum

Coren, S. et Porac, C. (1983) The creation and reversal of the Müller-Lyer illusion through attentional manipulation. Perception 12, 49-54.

Day, R , 1973 "The oblique line illusion: The Poggendorff effect without parallels" Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 25, 535-541

Day, R H, Dickinson, R G, 1976 "The components of the Poggendorff illusion" British Journal of Psychology 67, 537-552

Day, R H, Dickinson, R G, Jory, M K, 1977 "The Poggendorff illusion with subjective contours" Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 219-226

Day, R.H. et Stecher, E.J. (1991) Sine of an illusion. Perception 20, 49-55.

Deregowski, J.B. (1989) Real space and represented space: Cross-cultural perspectives. Behavioural and brain sciences 12, 51-119.

de Savigny, G.B. (1905) Les amusements de la science. Librairie des publications populaires, Paris.

Field, D J, Hayes, A, Hess, R F, 1993 "Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local "association field" " Vision Research 33, 173-193

Finlay, D C, Caelli, T M, 1975 "The Poggendorff illusion and estimates of transverse extent" Perceptual and motor skills 41, 143-148

Fraser, J. (1908) A new illusion of visual direction. British. J. Psychol. 2, 307-320.

Gillam, B, 1971 "A depth processing theory of the Poggendorff illusion" Perception & Psychophysics 10, 211-215

Goldstein, M B, Weintraub, D J, 1972 "The parallel-less Poggendorff: virtual contours put the illusion down but not out" Perception and Psychophysics 11, 353-355

Greene, E, 1994 "Colinearity judgment as a function of induction angle" Perceptual and motor skills 78, 655-674.

Gregory, R.L. (1963) Distorsion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature 199, 678-680.

Gregory, R, 1972 "Cognitive contours" Nature 238, 51-52.

Gregory, R.L. (1991) Putting illusions in their place. Perception 20, 1-4.

Greist-Bousquet, S, Schiffman, H R, 1985 "Poggendorff and Müller-Lyer illusions : common effects" Perception 14, 427-447

Hotopf, W H N, 1981 "Mistracking in alignment illusions" Journal of Experimental Psychology 7, 1211-1246

Hotopf , W H N, Hibberd, M C, 1989 "The role of angles in inducing misalignment in the Poggendorff figure" Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41A, 355 - 383

Hotopf, W. H. N. and Ollerearnshaw, C, 1972 "The regression to right angles tendency and the Poggendorff illusion II." British Journal of Psychology 63, 369-379

Judd, H, 1899 "A study of geometrical illusions" Perception and Psychophysics 39, 148 – 150.

Kanisza, G. (1980) Grammatica del vedere. (1997) Traduction française: La grammaire du voir, Diderot, Paris.

Luckiesh, M. (1922) Visual Illusions. Their causes, characteristics and applications. D. Van Nostrand Company and Constable & Company Ltd. Reprinted (1965) by Dover Publications, Inc., New-York.

Maffei, L. et Fiorentini, A. (1995) Arte e cervello. Zanichelli, Bologna.

Morgan, M J, 1996) "Visual illusions" in Unsolved mysteries of the mind. Tutorial essays in Cognition Ed. V Bruce (Hove, East Sussex: Erlbaum (U K), Taylor and Francis) pp. 29-58

Morgan, M J, Casco, C 1990 "Spatial filtering and spatial primitives in early vision" Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, B242, 1-10.

Ninio, J 1977 The geometry of the correspondence between two retinal projections. Perception 6, 627-643.

Ninio, J. (1983) The brain as a geometer. Journal of Theoretical Biology 103, 1-9.

Ninio, J. (1991) L’empreinte des sens. Coll. Points Odile Jacob, Paris.

Ninio, J. (1994) La vision stéréoscopique, sens méconnu. Pour la Science 197, 28-35.

Ninio, J. (1996) Flottements. Pour la Science 223, 95-96.

Oyama, T, 1960 "Japanese studies of so-called geometrical-optical illusions" Psychologia 3, 7-20.

Piaget, J. and Osterrieth, P.A. (1953) Archives de Psychologie 34, 1-XXX.

Plateau, J. (1878) Bibliographie analytique des principaux phénomènes subjectifs de la vision, depuis les temps anciens jusqu'à la fin du XVIII° siècle, suivie d'une bibliographie simple pour la partie écoulée du siècle actuel. Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique. Tome 52. Section 1: Persistence des impressions sur la rétine. Section 2: Couleurs accidentelles ordinaires de succession. Section 3: Images qui succèdent à la contemplation d'objets d'un grand éclat ou même d'objets blancs bien éclairés. Section 4: Irradiation. Section 5: Phénomènes ordinaires de contraste. Section 6: Ombres colorées.

Polat, U, Sagi, D, 1994 "The architecture of perceptual spatial interactions" Vision Research 34, 73-78.

Segall, M.H., Campbell, D.T. et Herskovits, M.J. (1963) Cultural differences in the perception of geometric illusions. Science 139, 769-771.

Stevens, K, 1986 "Inferring shape from contours accross surfaces" in From pixels to predicates Ed A P Pentland (Norwood, N.J. : Ablex) pp. 93-110.

Tolanski, S. (1964) Optical illusions. Pergamon, London.

Tyler, C. W. and Nakayama, K. (1984) Size interactions in the perception of orientation. In Sensory experience, adaptation and perception. Festschrift for Ivo Kohler. Eds B. R. Wooten, L. Spillmann (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey), pp. 529-546.

Vicario, G B, Zambianchi, E, 1993 "The optical-geometrical illusion “ corner Poggendorff ” re-examined" Perceptual and motor skills 76, 1283-1286

Wade, N. (1982) The art and science of visual llusions. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Lonon.

Wehrhahn, C, Dresp, B, 1998 "Detection facilitation by colinear stimuli in humans: dependence on strength and sign of contrast" Vision Research 38, 423-428

Wenderoth, P, Beh, H, White, D 1978 "Alignment errors to both ends of acute- and obtuse-angle arms", Perception and Psychophysics 23, 475-482

Zambianchi, E, 1990 "Vecchi e nuovi dati sull'illusione ottico -geometrica detta corner-Poggendorff" Contributi di Psicologia 3, 49-72