Current accounts of the Ebbinghaus illusion emphasize either size contrast or contour interaction processes. To assess these alternatives, four variants of the Ebbinghaus figure were constructed using 1, 5, 9, or 13 small circles dispersed along the perimeter of larger contextual circles. 30 observers ranked the perceived size of the central circles and a single control circle. The rankings indicated that increasing the number of small circles reduced the perceived size of the central circle. The results parallel the effects of contextual arcs on the Ebbinghaus illusion and suggest that the mis-estimations of central circle size in Ebbinghaus figures result primarily from contour interactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CorenS.EnnsJ. T. (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 579–588.
2.
CorenS.MillerJ. (1974) Size contrast as a function of figural similarity. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 355–357.
3.
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 Performance, 33, 738–742.
4.
EhrensteinW. H.HamadaJ. (1995) Structural factors of size contrast in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Japanese Psychological Research, 37, 158–169.
5.
von. HelmholtzH. (1866/1925) Treatise on Physiological Optics. Vol. 2. (SouthallJ. P. C., transl.) Rochester, NY: Optical Society of America. [originally published as Handbuch der physiologischen optik (1866, Leipzig, Saxony: Voss)].
6.
JaegerT.GrassoK. (1993) Contour lightness and separation effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 76, 255–258.
7.
JaegerT.KlahsK.NewtonD. (2014) Ebbinghaus illusions with disc figures: effects of contextual size, separation, and lightness. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 118, 805–817. DOI: 10.2466/24.27.PMS.118k29w0.
8.
JaegerT.PollackR. H. (1977) Effect of contrast level and temporal order on Ebbinghaus circle illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 83–87.
9.
MassaroD. J.AndersonN. H. (1971) Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 147–151.
10.
RobertsB.HarrisM. G.YatesT. A. (2005) The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchner circles). Perception, 34, 847–856. DOI: 10:1068/p5273.
11.
RoseD.BressanP. (2002) Going round in circles: shape effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Spatial Vision, 15, 191–203.
12.
StapelD. A.KoomenW. (1997) Social categorization and perceptual judgment of size: when perception is social. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1177–1190.
13.
VukM.PodlesekA. (2005) The effect of inner elements of the context figures on the Ebbinghaus illusion. Horizons of Psychology, 14, 9–22.
14.
WeintraubD. J.SchneckM. K. (1986) Fragments of the Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 147–158.
