There is debate as to whether or not the Ebbinghaus illusion is driven by high-level cognitive size contrast mechanisms as opposed to low-level biphasic contour interactions. In this study, we examine the variability in effects that are shared between this illusion and a different illusion that cannot be explained logically by a size contrast account. This comparison revealed that nearly one quarter of the variability for one illusion is shared with the other – demonstrating how a size-contrast account cannot be the sole explanation for the Ebbinghaus illusion.
ChouinardP. A.NoultyW. A.SperandioI.LandryO. (2013) Global processing during the Müller-Lyer illusion is distinctively affected by the degree of autistic traits in the typical population. Experimental Brain Research230: 219–231. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3646-6.
2.
CorenS. (1999) Relative contribution of lateral inhibition to the Delboeuf and Wundt-Hering illusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills88: 771–784. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.88.3.771.
3.
CorenS.MillerJ. (1974) Size contrast as a function of figural similarity. Perception & Psychophysics16: 355–357. doi:10.3758/BF03203955.
4.
De FockertJ.DavidoffJ.FagotJ.ParronC.GoldsteinJ. (2007) More accurate size contrast judgments in the Ebbinghaus illusion by a remote culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance33: 738–742.
5.
GoldJ. M. (2014) Information processing correlates of a size-contrast illusion. Frontiers in Psychology5: 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00142.
6.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N. (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology160(1): 106–154.
7.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N. (1968) Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. The Journal of Physiology195(1): 215–243.
8.
JaegerT.KlahsK. (2015) The Ebbinghaus illusion: new contextual effects and theoretical considerations. Perceptual & Motor Skills120: 177–182. doi:10.2466/24.27.PMS.120v13x4.
9.
MassaroD. W.AndersonN. H. (1971) Judgemental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology89: 147–151.
10.
RoseD.BressanP. (2002) Going round in circles: shape effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Spatial Vision15: 191–203. doi:10.1163/15685680252875165.
11.
RobertsB.HarrisM. G.YatesT. A. (2005) The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchner circles). Perception34: 847–856. doi:10:1068/p5273.
12.
SchwarzkopfD.SongC.ReesG. (2011) The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nature Neuroscience14: 28–30. doi:10.1038/nn.2706.
WeintraubD. J.SchneckM. K. (1986) Fragments of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size. Perception & Psychophysics40: 147–158.
