Pairs of complex shapes, for example, two golf holes or two hands making a peace sign, were printed on cards with one of the two shapes surrounded by a circle. 20 participants judged the size of the unenclosed shapes relative to the size of the enclosed ones. For 12 pairs in which there were physical differences in size of the two shapes, participants made veridical judgments. More importantly, for the six pairs in which the unenclosed and circumscribed shapes were the same size, the unenclosed shapes were judged smaller than the circumscribed ones. Thus, a novel illusion in which surrounding circles perceptually enlarge a variety of interior shapes is demonstrated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BishopY. M.FinebergS. E.HollandP. W. (1975) Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
CorenS. (1999) Relative contribution of lateral inhibition to the Delboeuf and Wundt-Hering illusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 771–784.
3.
FellowsB. J. (1968) The reverse Müller-Lyer illusion and “enclosure.”British Journal of Psychology, 59, 369–372.
4.
KunnapasT. M. (1957) Vertical-horizontal illusion and surrounding field. Acta Psychologia, 13, 35–42.
5.
OyamaT. (1960) Japanese studies of the so-called geometrical-optical illusions. Acta Psychologia, 3, 7–20.
6.
WeintraubD. J.WilsonB. A.GreeneR. D.PalmquistM. J. (1969) Delboeuf illusion: Displacement versus diameter, arc deletions, and brightness contrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 505–511.
7.
WeintraubD. J.SchneckM. K. (1986) Fragments of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: Contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 147–158.
8.
WinerB. J. (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
