The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles)

Brian Roberts*, Mike G. Harris, Tim A. Yates

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although the Ebbinghaus illusion is commonly used as an example of a simple size-contrast effect, previous studies have emphasised its complexity by identifying many factors that potentially influence the magnitude of the illusion. Here, in a series of three experiments, we attempt to simplify this complexity. In each trial, subjects saw a display comprising, on one side, a target stimulus surrounded by inducers and, on the other, an isolated probe stimulus. Their task was to indicate whether the probe appeared larger or smaller than the target. Probe size was adjusted with a one-up, one-down staircase procedure to find the point of subjective equality between probe and target. From these experiments, we argue that the apparent effects of inducer size are often confounded by the relative completeness of the inducing surround and that factors such as the similarity of the inducers and target are secondary. We suggest a simple model that can explain most of the data in terms of just two primary and independent factors: the relative size of the inducers and target, and the distance between the inducers and the target. The balance between these two factors determines whether the size of the target is underestimated or overestimated. © 2005 a Pion publication.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)847-856
Number of pages10
JournalPerception
Volume34
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint

Mesons
Publications
Experiments
Display devices

Keywords

  • Ebbinghaus illusion

Cite this

Roberts, Brian ; Harris, Mike G. ; Yates, Tim A. / The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles). In: Perception. 2005 ; Vol. 34, No. 7. pp. 847-856.
@article{360a16501f5d4168b2772742d7256d10,
title = "The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles)",
abstract = "Although the Ebbinghaus illusion is commonly used as an example of a simple size-contrast effect, previous studies have emphasised its complexity by identifying many factors that potentially influence the magnitude of the illusion. Here, in a series of three experiments, we attempt to simplify this complexity. In each trial, subjects saw a display comprising, on one side, a target stimulus surrounded by inducers and, on the other, an isolated probe stimulus. Their task was to indicate whether the probe appeared larger or smaller than the target. Probe size was adjusted with a one-up, one-down staircase procedure to find the point of subjective equality between probe and target. From these experiments, we argue that the apparent effects of inducer size are often confounded by the relative completeness of the inducing surround and that factors such as the similarity of the inducers and target are secondary. We suggest a simple model that can explain most of the data in terms of just two primary and independent factors: the relative size of the inducers and target, and the distance between the inducers and the target. The balance between these two factors determines whether the size of the target is underestimated or overestimated. {\circledC} 2005 a Pion publication.",
keywords = "Ebbinghaus illusion",
author = "Brian Roberts and Harris, {Mike G.} and Yates, {Tim A.}",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1068/p5273",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "847--856",
journal = "Perception",
issn = "0301-0066",
publisher = "Pion Ltd.",
number = "7",

}

The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles). / Roberts, Brian; Harris, Mike G.; Yates, Tim A.

In: Perception, Vol. 34, No. 7, 2005, p. 847-856.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles)

AU - Roberts, Brian

AU - Harris, Mike G.

AU - Yates, Tim A.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Although the Ebbinghaus illusion is commonly used as an example of a simple size-contrast effect, previous studies have emphasised its complexity by identifying many factors that potentially influence the magnitude of the illusion. Here, in a series of three experiments, we attempt to simplify this complexity. In each trial, subjects saw a display comprising, on one side, a target stimulus surrounded by inducers and, on the other, an isolated probe stimulus. Their task was to indicate whether the probe appeared larger or smaller than the target. Probe size was adjusted with a one-up, one-down staircase procedure to find the point of subjective equality between probe and target. From these experiments, we argue that the apparent effects of inducer size are often confounded by the relative completeness of the inducing surround and that factors such as the similarity of the inducers and target are secondary. We suggest a simple model that can explain most of the data in terms of just two primary and independent factors: the relative size of the inducers and target, and the distance between the inducers and the target. The balance between these two factors determines whether the size of the target is underestimated or overestimated. © 2005 a Pion publication.

AB - Although the Ebbinghaus illusion is commonly used as an example of a simple size-contrast effect, previous studies have emphasised its complexity by identifying many factors that potentially influence the magnitude of the illusion. Here, in a series of three experiments, we attempt to simplify this complexity. In each trial, subjects saw a display comprising, on one side, a target stimulus surrounded by inducers and, on the other, an isolated probe stimulus. Their task was to indicate whether the probe appeared larger or smaller than the target. Probe size was adjusted with a one-up, one-down staircase procedure to find the point of subjective equality between probe and target. From these experiments, we argue that the apparent effects of inducer size are often confounded by the relative completeness of the inducing surround and that factors such as the similarity of the inducers and target are secondary. We suggest a simple model that can explain most of the data in terms of just two primary and independent factors: the relative size of the inducers and target, and the distance between the inducers and the target. The balance between these two factors determines whether the size of the target is underestimated or overestimated. © 2005 a Pion publication.

KW - Ebbinghaus illusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23944463450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p5273

U2 - 10.1068/p5273

DO - 10.1068/p5273

M3 - Article

C2 - 16124270

VL - 34

SP - 847

EP - 856

JO - Perception

JF - Perception

SN - 0301-0066

IS - 7

ER -