Re: [visionlist] immunity from illusionsPosted: February 18, 2017
Evolutionary! The anatomical influences first noted by Schwarzkopf extend to species specific differences in susceptibility to visual illusions, too:
de Sousa, A. A., & Proulx, M. J. (2014). What can volumes reveal about human brain evolution? A framework for bridging behavioral, histometric, and volumetric perspectives. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, 8, 51.
Michael J. Proulx, PhD
Associate Professor (Reader) in Psychology
Department of Psychology
University of Bath
On 18 Feb 2017 17:57, “Marco Bertamini” wrote:
To summarise various
contributions, here is a list of factors modulating responses to visual illusions
and thus contributing to individual differences:
Age. Simon Rushton has already mentioned Piaget (Piaget et al., 1942).
There is also more recent work (Doherty
et al., 2010)
Anatomy. Size illusions
correlate to size of V1 (Schwarzkopf et al., 2011). I imagine the individual
differences reviewed by David Peterzell (2016) may also relate to different
sensitivity to visual illusions.
Autism spectrum. Many
studies on this (best known study by Happé, 1996; recent review in Gori et al.,
Culture. The Himba in
Namibia have weaker illusions, may focus more on local info (de Fockert et al., 2007). Also Asians differ from Westerners, showing
greater sensitivity to context in size illusions (Doherty et al., 2008).
Developmental dyslexia. Slaghuis
et al. (1996) using Ternus stimulus, found a reduction of group motion.
Schiophrenia (review in Notredame et al., 2014, see also
link in Chris Sims
post to an article by Laura Sanders).
Schizotypy. Not sure
whether this should be listed separately from schizophrenia (Partos et al., 2016).
Sex. In relation to males
having a stronger lateralisation (Rasmjou et al., 1999)
It has also already been
mentioned that recent work found weak correlations between visual illusions in
a sample of over 100 people (Grzeczkowski et al., 2016) thus suggesting that
maybe some variability is idiosyncratic.
Are there more factors to
add to the list?
de Fockert, J., Davidoff, J.,
Fagot, J., Parron, C., & Goldstein, J. (2007). More accurate size contrast
judgments in the Ebbinghaus Illusion by a remote culture. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 738-742.
Doherty, M. J., Campbell, N. M.,
Tsuji, H., & Phillips, W. A. (2010). The Ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults
but not young children. Developmental science, 13(5), 714-721.
Doherty, M., Tsuji, H. &
Phillips W.A. (2008). The context sensitivity of visual size perception varies
across cultures. Perception, 37, 1426-1433
Gori, S., Molteni, M., &
Facoetti, A. (2016). Visual Illusions: An Interesting Tool to Investigate
Developmental Dyslexia and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10.
Grzeczkowski, L., Clarke, A.M., Francis, G., Mast, F.W., & Herzog,
M.H. (2017). About individual
differences in vision. Vision Research.
Happé, F. G. (1996).
Studying weak central coherence at low levels: children with autism do not
succumb to visual illusions. A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 37(7), 873-877.
Notredame, C. E., Pins, D.,
Deneve, S., and Jardri, R. (2014). What visual illusions teach us about
schizophrenia. Frontiers Integr. Neurosci. 12:63.
Partos, T.R., Cropper, S.J.,
& Rawlings, D. (2016). You Don’t See What I See: Individual Differences in
the Perception of Meaning from Visual Stimuli. PloS one, 11(3), e0150615.
Peterzell, D. H., &
Kennedy, J. F. (2016). Discovering sensory processes using individual
differences: A review and factor analytic manifesto. Electronic Imaging,
Piaget, J., Lambercier, M.,
Boesch, E., & von Albertini, B. (1942). Introduction a l’etude des
perceptions chez l’enfant et analyse d’une illusion relative a la perception
visuelle de cercles concentriques (Delboeuf). Archives de Psychologie, 29, 1-107.
Rasmjou, S., Hausmann, M., &
Güntürkün, O. (1999). Hemispheric dominance and gender in the perception of an
illusion. Neuropsychologia, 37(9), 1041-1047.
Schwarzkopf, D.S., Song, C.,
& Rees, G. (2011). The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective
experience of object size. Nature
Neuroscience, 14(1), 28-30.
Slaghuis, W.L., Twell, A.J., and
Kingston, K.R. (1996). Visual and language processing disorders are concurrent
in dyslexia and continue into adulthood. Cortex