[visionlist] immunity from illusions

[Andrew Schofield (School of Psychology)]

One might add migraine. Those with migraine paradoxically show larger tilt and motion after-effects than controls. Shepherd Brain.<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11673331#> 2001 Nov;124(Pt 11):2310-8.





**********************************
* Dr Andrew Schofield
* School of Psychology
* University of Birmingham
* Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT
________________________________
From: visionlist [visionlist-bounces at visionscience.com] on behalf of Marco Bertamini [marco.bertamini at gmail.com]
Sent: 17 February 2017 19:52
To: visionlist at visionscience.com
Subject: ?spam? Re: [visionlist] immunity from illusions

To summarise various contributions, here is a list of factors modulating responses to visual illusions and thus contributing to individual differences:

Age. Simon Rushton has already mentioned Piaget (Piaget et al., 1942). There is also more recent work (Doherty et al., 2010)
Anatomy. Size illusions correlate to size of V1 (Schwarzkopf et al., 2011). I imagine the individual differences reviewed by David Peterzell (2016) may also relate to different sensitivity to visual illusions.
Autism spectrum. Many studies on this (best known study by Happé, 1996; recent review in Gori et al., 2016)
Culture. The Himba in Namibia have weaker illusions, may focus more on local info (de Fockert et al., 2007). Also Asians differ from Westerners, showing greater sensitivity to context in size illusions (Doherty et al., 2008).
Developmental dyslexia. Slaghuis et al. (1996) using Ternus stimulus, found a reduction of group motion.
Schiophrenia (review in Notredame et al., 2014, see also link in Chris Sims post to an article by Laura Sanders).
Schizotypy. Not sure whether this should be listed separately from schizophrenia (Partos et al., 2016).
Sex. In relation to males having a stronger lateralisation (Rasmjou et al., 1999)

It has also already been mentioned that recent work found weak correlations between visual illusions in a sample of over 100 people (Grzeczkowski et al., 2016) thus suggesting that maybe some variability is idiosyncratic.

Are there more factors to add to the list?

Cheers,  Marco



de Fockert, J., Davidoff, J., Fagot, J., Parron, C., & Goldstein, J. (2007). More accurate size contrast judgments in the Ebbinghaus Illusion by a remote culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 738-742.

Doherty, M. J., Campbell, N. M., Tsuji, H., & Phillips, W. A. (2010). The Ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults but not young children. Developmental science, 13(5), 714-721.

Doherty, M., Tsuji, H. & Phillips W.A. (2008). The context sensitivity of visual size perception varies across cultures. Perception, 37, 1426-1433

Gori, S., Molteni, M., & Facoetti, A. (2016). Visual Illusions: An Interesting Tool to Investigate Developmental Dyslexia and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10.

Grzeczkowski, L., Clarke, A.M., Francis, G., Mast, F.W., & Herzog, M.H. (2017). About individual differences in vision. Vision Research.
Happé, F. G. (1996). Studying weak central coherence at low levels: children with autism do not succumb to visual illusions. A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(7), 873-877.
Notredame, C. E., Pins, D., Deneve, S., and Jardri, R. (2014). What visual illusions teach us about schizophrenia. Frontiers Integr. Neurosci. 12:63.

Partos, T.R., Cropper, S.J., & Rawlings, D. (2016). You Don’t See What I See: Individual Differences in the Perception of Meaning from Visual Stimuli. PloS one, 11(3), e0150615.
Peterzell, D. H., & Kennedy, J. F. (2016). Discovering sensory processes using individual differences: A review and factor analytic manifesto. Electronic Imaging, 2016(16), 1-11.

Piaget, J., Lambercier, M., Boesch, E., & von Albertini, B. (1942). Introduction a l'etude des perceptions chez l'enfant et analyse d'une illusion relative a la perception visuelle de cercles concentriques (Delboeuf). Archives de Psychologie, 29, 1-107.

Rasmjou, S., Hausmann, M., & Güntürkün, O. (1999). Hemispheric dominance and gender in the perception of an illusion. Neuropsychologia, 37(9), 1041-1047.

Schwarzkopf, D.S., Song, C., & Rees, G. (2011). The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nature Neuroscience, 14(1), 28-30.

Slaghuis, W.L., Twell, A.J., and Kingston, K.R. (1996). Visual and language processing disorders are concurrent in dyslexia and continue into adulthood. Cortex 32, 413-438.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist_visionscience.com/attachments/20170218/c2ed0581/attachment-0001.html>