The Ebbinghaus illusion or Titchener circles is an optical illusion of relative size perception. Named for its discoverer, the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850–1909), the illusion was popularized in the English-speaking world by Edward B. Titchener in a 1901 textbook of experimental psychology, hence its alternative name.[1] In the best-known version of the illusion, two circles of identical size are placed near to each other, and one is surrounded by large circles while the other is surrounded by small circles. As a result of the juxtaposition of circles, the central circle surrounded by large circles appears smaller than the central circle surrounded by small circles.
Recent work suggests that two other critical factors involved in the perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion are the distance of the surrounding circles from the central circle and the completeness of the annulus, which makes the illusion comparable in nature to the Delboeuf illusion. Regardless of relative size, if the surrounding circles are closer to the central circle, the central circle appears larger and if the surrounding circles are far away, the central circle appears smaller. While the distance variable appears to be an active factor in the perception of relative size, the size of the surrounding circles limits how close they can be to the central circle, resulting in many studies confounding the two variables.[1]
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:619 084496 79147 127
-
Can You See These Optical Illusions?
-
The Dynamic Ebbinghaus
-
What Cats Taught Us About Perception
Transcription
Back in the mid 1800s, American psychologist Joseph Jastrow illustrated this animal. Some of you will see a duck, others a rabbit - but not both at once. The image itself allows for both interpretations and switching between them involves some mental effort. And when you look at the duck, for example, do you see the same duck that I see? When you and me both see the colour orange, do we experience the same hue? Or the same illusion? Research suggests the differences in our subjective experiences are tied to the different sizes of certain areas in our brain. In one study, researchers asked participants to judge which of these circles is larger. Even though you know these two circles are the same size, it’s almost impossible to see it that way. Using fMRI, they mapped the participants’ visual cortex, the part of your brain responsible for processing visual information. They found those with a larger visual cortex were better at judging the true size of the inner circle, and those with a smaller visual cortex were the least accurate. And they came to the same conclusion using other illusions. It’s difficult to say why exactly the size of one brain area leads to people being more easily tricked by optical illusions. It could have to do with the concentration of chemical messengers inside the visual cortex. Other studies have found that the magnitude of optical illusions differs in people with autism or in people from different cultures. Things we see can be constructed in many different ways. When children were shown the duck-rabbit illusion on Easter Sunday (rabbit season), more children see the rabbit, where on other Sundays they are more likely to see the duck (duck season). In late November, you might even view the duck through the lens of turkey season. Sure, What You See Is What You Get, but remember that things may be perceived through different lenses. Like the size of these circles, the length of these lines, or a pod of dolphins splashing the hours away. And if you don’t already, subscribe to BrainCraft! I have a new brainy episode out every Thursday.
Possible explanations
The Ebbinghaus illusion has played a crucial role in the debate over the existence of separate pathways in the brain for perception and action (for more details see Two Streams hypothesis).[2] It has been argued that the Ebbinghaus illusion distorts perception of size, but not action. A study by neuroscientist Melvyn A. Goodale showed that when a subject is required to respond to a physical model of the illusion by grasping the central circle, the scaling of the grip aperture was unaffected by the perceived size distortion.[3] While other studies confirm the insensitivity of grip scaling to size-contrast illusions like the Ebbinghaus illusion, other work[4] suggests that both action and perception are fooled by the illusion.
Neuroimaging research suggests an inverse correlation between an individual's receptivity to the Ebbinghaus and similar illusions (such as the Ponzo illusion) and the highly variable size of the individual's primary visual cortex.[5] Developmental research suggests that the illusion is dependent on context-sensitivity. The illusion was found more often to cause relative-size deception in university students, who have high context-sensitivity, than in children aged 10 and under.[6]
Study found 70 genetic variants linked to the perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion.[7]
The winner of the 2014 Best Illusion of the Year Contest, submitted by Christopher D. Blair, Gideon P. Caplovitz, and Ryan E.B. Mruczek, of the University of Nevada, Reno, animated the Ebbinghaus illusion, putting it in motion.[8]
An exception with opposite visual effects
A new relative size illusion was discovered by Italian visual researcher Gianni A. Sarcone in 2013. It contradicts Ebbinghaus illusion (1898), aka Titchener Circles, and Obonai square illusion (1954). In fact, the central test shape (a cross) surrounded by large squares appears larger instead of smaller.
Sarcone's Cross illusion consists of a cross (the test shape) surrounded by sets of squares of distinct size (the inducing shapes). As shown in the diagram opposite, the three blue crosses are exactly the same size; however, the one on the left (fig. 1) tends to appear larger. The illusion works even when the small squares completely occlude the blue cross (see fig. 3). In conclusion, there isn’t always correlation between the size of the surrounding shapes and the relative size perception of the test shape.
References
- ^ a b Roberts B, Harris MG, Yates TA (2005). "The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles)". Perception. 34 (7): 847–56. doi:10.1068/p5273. PMID 16124270. S2CID 26626773.
- ^ M.A. Goodale; A.D. Milner (January 1992). "Separate pathways for perception and action". Trends in Neurosciences. 15 (1): 20–25. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.207.6873. doi:10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8. PMID 1374953. S2CID 793980.
- ^ MA Goodale (2011). "Transforming vision into action". Vision Res. 51 (14): 1567–87. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.027. PMID 20691202.
- ^ V.H. Franz; F. Scharnowski; K.R. Gegenfurtner (2005). "Illusion effects on grasping are temporally constant not dynamic" (PDF). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 31 (6): 1359–1378. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1359. PMID 16366795.
- ^ D Samuel Schwarzkopf; Chen Song; Geraint Rees (January 2011). "The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size". Nature Neuroscience. 14 (1): 28–30. doi:10.1038/nn.2706. PMC 3012031. PMID 21131954.
- ^ Martin J. Doherty; Nicola M. Campbell; Hiromi Tsuji; William A. Phillips (2010). "The Ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults but not young children" (PDF). Developmental Science. 13 (5): 714–721. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00931.x. hdl:1893/1473. PMID 20712737.
- ^ Zhu, Zijian; Chen, Biqing; Na, Ren; Fang, Wan; Zhang, Wenxia; Zhou, Qin; Zhou, Shanbi; Lei, Han; Huang, Ailong; Chen, Tingmei; Ni, Dongsheng (2020-09-16). "A genome-wide association study reveals a substantial genetic basis underlying the Ebbinghaus illusion". Journal of Human Genetics. 66 (3): 261–271. doi:10.1038/s10038-020-00827-4. ISSN 1435-232X. PMID 32939015. S2CID 221770542.
- ^ Gonzalez, Robbie (21 May 2014). "A New Optical Illusion Demonstrates How Gullible Our Brains Really Are". i09. Retrieved 2015-03-01.
| Illusions |
|  |
|---|---|---|
| Popular culture |
| |
| Related | ||
This page was last edited on 13 February 2023, at 03:00