Individual differences in the perception of visual illusions are stable across eyes, time, and measurement methods

Susceptibility to geometrical visual illusions in Parkinson's disorder

Parkinson's disorder (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder affecting approximately 1-3% of the population aged 60 years and older. In addition to motor difficulties, PD is also marked by visual disturbances, including depth perception, abnormalities in basal ganglia functioning, and dopamine deficiency. Reduced ability to perceive depth has been linked to an increased risk of falling in this population. The purpose of this paper was to determine whether disturbances in PD patients' visual processing manifest through atypical performance on visual illusion (VI) tasks. This insight will advance understanding of high-level perception in PD, as well as indicate the role of dopamine deficiency and basal ganglia pathophysiology in VIs susceptibility. Groups of 28 PD patients (Mage = 63.46, SD = 7.55) and 28 neurotypical controls (Mage = 63.18, SD = 9.39) matched on age, general cognitive abilities (memory, numeracy, attention, language), and mood responded to Ebbinghaus, Ponzo, and Müller-Lyer illusions in a computer-based task. Our results revealed no reliable differences in VI susceptibility between PD and neurotypical groups. In the early- to mid-stage of PD, abnormalities of the basal ganglia and dopamine deficiency are unlikely to be involved in top-down processing or depth perception, which are both thought to be related to VI susceptibility. Furthermore, depth-related issues experienced by PD patients (e.g., increased risk for falling) may not be subserved by the same cognitive mechanisms as VIs. Further research is needed to investigate if more explicit presentations of illusory depth are affected in PD, which might help to understand the depth processing deficits in PD.

The BTPI: An online battery for measuring susceptibility to visual illusions

Visual illusions provide a powerful tool for probing the mechanisms that underlie perception. While most previous studies of visual illusions focused on average group-level performance, less attention has been devoted to individual differences in susceptibility to illusions. Unlike in other perceptual domains, in which there are established, validated tools to measure individual differences, such tools are not yet available in the domain of visual illusions. Here, we describe the development and validation of the BTPI (Ben-Gurion University Test for Perceptual Illusions), a new online battery designed to measure susceptibility to the influence of three prominent size illusions: the Ebbinghaus, the Ponzo, and the height-width illusions. The BTPI also measures perceptual resolution, reflected by the just noticeable difference (JND), to detect size differences in the context of each illusion. In Experiment 1 (N = 143), we examined performance in typical self-paced tasks, whereas in Experiment 2 (N = 69), we employed a fixed presentation duration paradigm. High test-retest reliability scores were found for all illusions, with little evidence for intercorrelations between different illusions. In addition, lower perceptual resolution (larger JND) was associated with a larger susceptibility to the illusory effect. The computerized task battery and analysis codes are freely available online.

Exploring the extent to which shared mechanisms contribute to motion-position illusions

Motion-position illusions (MPIs) are visual motion illusions in which motion signals bias the perceived position of an object. Due to phenomenological similarities between these illusions, previous research has assumed that some are caused by common mechanisms. However, this assumption has yet to be directly tested. This study investigates this assumption by exploiting between-participant variations in illusion magnitude. During two sessions, 106 participants viewed the flash-lag effect, luminance flash-lag effect, Fröhlich effect, flash-drag effect, flash-grab effect, motion-induced position shift, twinkle-goes effect, and the flash-jump effect. For each effect, the magnitude of the illusion was reliable within participants, strongly correlating between sessions. When the pairwise correlations of averaged illusions magnitudes were explored, two clusters of statistically significant positively correlated illusions were identified. The first cluster comprised the flash-grab effect, motion-induced position shift, and twinkle-goes effect. The second cluster comprised the Fröhlich and flash-drag effect. The fact that within each of these two clusters, individual differences in illusion magnitude were correlated suggests that these clusters may reflect shared underlying mechanisms. An exploratory factor analysis provided additional evidence that these correlated clusters shared an underlying factor, with each cluster loading onto their own factor. Overall, our results reveal that, contrary to the prevailing perspective in the literature, while some motion-position illusions share processes, most of these illusions are unlikely to reflect any shared processes, instead implicating unique mechanisms.

How we compare areas: The underlying mechanism of the elongation bias

Across four experiments, we investigate the mechanism that underlies the elongation bias. We find individuals tasked with assessing the area of two objects do so by comparing the objects' dimensions, and thus subtle changes in the objects' dimensions can impact area assessments. Because a typical elongation bias experiment places two objects side-by-side horizontally and varies the elongation ratio while maintaining the same area, height is generally easier to compare than width. Thus, there will exist a region where the change in height noticeably crosses a perceptual just noticeable difference boundary, but the corresponding change in width does not, and individuals will tend to perceive that the taller object has a greater area or volume. Consistent with this proposed process, we suggest that, although the elongation bias occurs under a comparative judgment, it does not do so under a single judgment situation. This research contributes to our wider understanding of the visual processes underlying area comparisons.

A novel visual illusion paradigm provides evidence for a general factor of illusion sensitivity and personality correlates

Visual illusions are a gateway to understand how we construct our experience of reality. Unfortunately, important questions remain open, such as the hypothesis of a common factor underlying the sensitivity to different types of illusions, as well as of personality correlates of illusion sensitivity. In this study, we used a novel parametric framework for visual illusions to generate 10 different classic illusions (Delboeuf, Ebbinghaus, Rod and Frame, Vertical-Horizontal, Zöllner, White, Müller-Lyer, Ponzo, Poggendorff, Contrast) varying in strength, embedded in a perceptual discrimination task. We tested the objective effect of the illusions on errors and response times, and extracted participant-level performance scores (n=250) for each illusion. Our results provide evidence in favour of a general factor underlying the sensitivity to different illusions (labelled Factor i). Moreover, we report a positive link between illusion sensitivity and personality traits such as Agreeableness, Honesty-Humility, and negative relationships with Psychoticism, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Negative Affect.

Consistently Inconsistent Perceptual Illusions in Nonhuman Primates: The Importance of Individual Differences

Perceptual illusions, and especially visual illusions, are of great interest not only to scientists, but to all people who experience them. From a scientific perspective, illusory visual experiences are informative about the nature of visual processes and the translation of sensory experiences to perceptual information that can then be used to guide behavior. It has been widely reported that some nonhuman species share these illusory experiences with humans. However, it is consistently the case that not all members of a species experience illusions in the same way. In fact, individual differences in susceptibility may be more typical than universal experiences of any given illusion. Focusing on research with the same nonhuman primates who were given a variety of perceptual illusion tasks, this "consistent inconsistency" is clearly evident. Additionally, this can even be true in assessments of human illusory experiences. Individual differences in susceptibility offer an important avenue for better understanding idiosyncratic aspects of visual perception, and the goal of isolating any possible universal principles of visual perception (in primates and beyond) should address these individual differences.

Idiosyncratic biases in the perception of medical images

Introduction

Radiologists routinely make life-altering decisions. Optimizing these decisions has been an important goal for many years and has prompted a great deal of research on the basic perceptual mechanisms that underlie radiologists' decisions. Previous studies have found that there are substantial individual differences in radiologists' diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity) due to experience, training, or search strategies. In addition to variations in sensitivity, however, another possibility is that radiologists might have perceptual biases-systematic misperceptions of visual stimuli. Although a great deal of research has investigated radiologist sensitivity, very little has explored the presence of perceptual biases or the individual differences in these.

Methods

Here, we test whether radiologists' have perceptual biases using controlled artificial and Generative Adversarial Networks-generated realistic medical images. In Experiment 1, observers adjusted the appearance of simulated tumors to match the previously shown targets. In Experiment 2, observers were shown with a mix of real and GAN-generated CT lesion images and they rated the realness of each image.

Results

We show that every tested individual radiologist was characterized by unique and systematic perceptual biases; these perceptual biases cannot be simply explained by attentional differences, and they can be observed in different imaging modalities and task settings, suggesting that idiosyncratic biases in medical image perception may widely exist.

Discussion

Characterizing and understanding these biases could be important for many practical settings such as training, pairing readers, and career selection for radiologists. These results may have consequential implications for many other fields as well, where individual observers are the linchpins for life-altering perceptual decisions.

A review on various explanations of Ponzo-like illusions

This article reviews theoretical and empirical arguments for and against various theories that explain the classic Ponzo illusion and its variants from two different viewpoints concerning the role of perceived depth in size distortions. The first viewpoint argues that all Ponzo-like illusions are driven by perceived depth. The second viewpoint argues that the classic Ponzo illusion is unrelated to depth perception. This review will give special focus to the first viewpoint and consists of three sections. In the first section, the role of the number of pictorial depth cues and previous experience in the strength of all Ponzo-like illusions are discussed. In the second section, we contrast the first viewpoint against the theories that explain the classic Ponzo illusion with mechanisms that are unrelated to depth perception. In the last section, we propose a Bayesian-motivated reconceptualization of Richard Gregory's misapplied size constancy theory that explains Ponzo-variant illusions in terms of prior information and prediction errors. The new account explains why some studies have provided inconsistent evidence for misapplied size constancy theory.