Explainable Reasonability of Ponzo Illusion: the Limitation of Tilt Constancy Theory

YANG Zhao-Ning; YU Dong-Shi; ZHU Ting

PDF(362 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2013, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (4) : 842-847.

Explainable Reasonability of Ponzo Illusion: the Limitation of Tilt Constancy Theory

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Tilt constancy theory is a new but limited theory that explains Ponzo illusion. The theory claims that the tilt induction effect of tilt background line made the subjects have the different perception of two horizonal lines. But other researchers had the different opinions from the Prinzmental’ result. All of the disputes seemed to be reflected the limitation existed in the theory. The method of adjustment was employed. In experiments，the fixed design was 2(viewpoints:6°，2°)×2(illusion versions: standard, rectilinear) ×2(distances of horizontal lines: 50mm，85mm and 120mm). In experiments，the subjects were asked to adjust the distances of horizontal lines below by the key“PgDn”and“PgUp”. Until they thought the distances of horizontal below that equaled the ones above. AVOVA was employed to analyze the figures calculated by the illusion magnitude formula. In Experiment 1, the illusion magnitude of symmetrical rectilinear version of Ponzo illusion was obtained the same as which Prinzmetal(2001) got when the distance of horizontal line was set to 50mm.However,under the condition of 85mm and 120mm,we got more magnitude of illusion than that of the previous results, the different results mismatched with the tilt constancy theory. In Experiment 2, we got the same magnitude as the former one. The results in the research reflectal that：（1）The result form the Prizmental could be seem in the specific condition.（2）Tilt constancy theory had its limitation，it can’t explain the production mechanism of Ponzo illusion in the all conditions.（3）The tilt background line was the important factor influencing the illusion magnitude. The mechanism isn’t the tilt induction effect，but the perception difference of the included angle of the background line.(4)Viewpoint and the distances of the horizontal lines were both the major factors influencing the Ponzo illusion magnitude.

Key words

tilt–constancy theory / Ponzo illusion / viewpoint / distance of horizontal lines

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Explainable Reasonability of Ponzo Illusion: the Limitation of Tilt Constancy Theory[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2013, 36(4): 842-847

References

李小健, 刘东台. (2008).视错觉产生的神经机制. 心理科学进展, 16, 555–561.
阎国利. (2004). 眼动分析法在心理学研究中的应用. 天津: 天津教育出版社.
Fisher, G. H. (1968a). An experimental comparison of rectilinear and curvilinear illusions. British Journal of Psychology, 59, 23–28.
Fisher, G. H. (1968b). Gradients of distortion seen in the context of the Ponzo illusion and other contours. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 212–217.
Fisher, G. H. (1969). Towards a new explanation of contours which induce illusory distortion. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 179–185.
Fisher, G. H. (1973). Toward a new explanation for the geometrical illusions: II. Apparent depth or contour proximity. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 607–621.
Gibson, J. J. (1937). Adaptation, after–effect, and contrast in the perception of tilted lines: II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after–effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 553–569.
Gibson, J. J., & Radner, M. (1937). Adaptation, after–effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines: I. Quantitative studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 453–467.
Ginsburg, A. P. (1984). Visual form perception based on biological filtering. In L.Spillmann & B. R. Wotten(Eds.), Visual form perception based on biological filtering(pp. 53–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Girgus, J. S., & Coren, S. (1982). Assimilation and contrast illusions: Differences in plasticity. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 555–561.
Gogel, W. C., & Sturm, R. D. (1972). A test of the relational hypothesis of perceived size. American Journal of Psychology, 85, 201–216.
Haffenden, A. M., Goodle, M. A. (2000). Independent effects of pictorial displays on perception and action. Vision Research, 40, 1597—1670.
Jordan, K., & Randall, J. (1987). The effects of framing ratio and oblique length in the Ponzo illusion magnitude. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 435–439.
Künnapas, T. M. (1955). Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 168–170.
Nelson, W. W., Loftus, G. R.(1980). The functional visual field during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 391–399.
Prinzmetal, W., & Beck, D. M. (2001). Tilt–constancy theory of visual illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 206–217.
Prinzmetal, W., Shimamura, P, A. & Mikolinski, M. (2001). The Ponzo illusion and the perception of orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 99–114.
Rock, I., & Ebenholtz, S. (1959). The relational determination of perceived size. Psychological Review, 66, 387–401.
Shimamura, A. P., & Prinzmetal, W. (2000). The mystery spot illusion and its relation to other visual illusions. Psychological Science, 10, 501–507.
Yamagami, A. (1976). The perspective illusions and the size scaling. The 40th Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association , 373–374, Nagoya.
Yamagami, A. (1978). Two kinds of apparent size distortion in the Ponzo illusion. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 49, 273–279.
Yamagami, A. (1980). Effect of frame on apparent length of a horizontal line. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 50, 318–325.
Yamagami, A. (1996). Measuring two kinds of Ponzo figure with two kinds of measurement. Ningen Kagaku Nenpo(Sciences of Man), 21, 9–22.
Yamagami, A. (2007). The effect of frame figure type and frame size on the line and the circle Ponzo illusions. Japanese Psychological Research, 49, 20–32.