Dynamic presentation boosts the Ebbinghaus illusion but reduces the Müller-Lyer and orientation contrast illusions

A motion-induced position shift that depends on motion both before and after the test probe

Two versions of the flash grab illusion were used to examine the relative contributions of motion before and motion after the test flash to the illusory position shift. The stimulus in the first two experiments was a square pattern that expanded and contracted with an outline square flashed each time the motion reversed producing a dramatic difference in perceived size between the two reversals. Experiment 1 showed a strong illusion when motion was present before and after the flashed tests or just after the flashes, but no significant effect when only the pre-flash motion was present. In Experiment 2, motion always followed the flash, and the duration of the pre-flash motion was varied. The results showed a significant increase in illusion strength with the duration of pre-flash motion and the effect of the pre-flash motion was almost 50% that of the post-flash motion. Finally, Experiment 3 tested the position shifts when the linear motion of a disk before the flash was orthogonal to its motion after the flash. Here, the results again showed that the pre-flash motion made a significant contribution, about 32% that of the post-flash motion. Several models are considered and even though all fail to some degree, they do offer insights into the nature of the illusion. Finally, we show that the empirical measure of the relative contribution of motion before and after the flash can be used to distinguish the mechanisms underlying different illusions.

Number comparison under the Ebbinghaus illusion

A series of studies show interest in how visual attributes affect the estimate of object numbers in a scene. In comparison tasks, it is suggested that larger patches are perceived as more numerous. However, the inequality of density, which changes inversely with the area when numerosity remains constant, may mediate the influence of area on numerosity perception. This study aims to explore the role of area and density in the judgment of numerosity. The Ebbinghaus illusion paradigm was adopted to induce differences in the perceived, rather than the physical, area of the two patches to be compared. Participants were asked to compare the area, density, and the number of the two patches in three tasks. To this end, no PSE (point of subjective equality) bias was found in number comparison with randomly distributed dots, although a significant difference was revealed in the perceived area of the two patches. No PSE bias was found in the density comparison, either. For a comparison, density and number tasks were also conducted with regularly distributed dots. No PSE bias was found in density comparison. By contrast, significant PSE bias showed up in number comparison, and larger patches appeared to be more numerous than smaller patches. The density mechanism was proposed as the basis for number comparison with regular patterns. The individual Weber fractions for regular patterns were not correlated with those for random patterns in the number task, but they were correlated with those for both patterns in the density task. To summarize, numerosity is directly sensed, and numerosity perception is not affected by area inequality induced by the Ebbinghaus illusion. In contrast, density and area are combined to infer numerosity when the approximate numerosity mechanism is disrupted by dot distribution.

The combination of target motion and dynamic changes in context greatly enhance visual size illusions

Perceived size is a function of viewing distance, retinal images size, and various contextual cues such as linear perspective and the size and location of neighboring objects. Recently, we demonstrated that illusion magnitudes of classic visual size illusions may be greatly enhanced or reduced by adding dynamic elements. Specifically, a dynamic version of the Ebbinghaus illusion (classically considered a “size contrast” illusion) led to a greatly enhanced illusory effect, whereas a dynamic version of the Corridor illusion (a “size constancy” illusion) led to a greatly diminished illusory effect. Although these differences may arise from the different processes underlying these illusions (size contrast vs. size constancy), the dynamic variants we tested in our previous work also differed in the nature of the dynamic elements; specifically, whereas the Dynamic Ebbinghaus included a moving target and inducers that changed size and position, the Dynamic Corridor only included a moving target on a static background. Here, we explore further dynamic versions of the Ebbinghaus illusion and the Corridor and Ponzo illusions by separately manipulating three types of dynamic elements: target motion, context translation, and dynamic changes in context. Across five experiments examining 21 dynamic illusory configurations, adding target motion or a dynamically changing context separately resulted in little-to-no illusory effect. In contrast, the combination of target motion and a dynamically changing context led to a robust size illusion, consistent with an interactive effect. However, illusory effects that exceeded the matched classic, static illusory configuration were only observed for the dynamic versions of the Ebbinghaus illusion and the Revealed Ponzo illusions, in which the contextual elements changed size. We conclude that the combination of target motion and a dynamically changing context are necessary to produce dynamic size illusions, but that enhancement above and beyond static illusions may be largely specific to size contrast effects. Our results have important implications for the integration of motion signals, a ubiquitous environmental stimulus, in the perception of object size.