The gap between rod and frame influences the rod-and-frame effect with small and large inducing displays

The role of the spatial separation between the ends of a rod and a frame’s inner edge (gap) in modulating the rod-and-frame effect (RFE) has been studied here with frames subtending either large or small retinal angles. With a large frame, rod settings were always in the direction of frame tilt (direct effects) and varied inversely with gap size. With a small frame, rod settings were in the direction of frame tilt for tilts between 7.5° and 15°; with larger frame tilts, rod settings in the direction opposite that of the frame were observed (indirect effects). Increasing gap size produced a tendency toward negativity (away from frame tilt). Consequently, direct effects were larger for small gaps, while the opposite was true for indirect effects. Overall, these results point to the importance of gap size in modulating the RFE, for both large and small displays.     

Body tilt effect on the reproduction of orientations: studies on the visual oblique effect and subjective orientations

Body tilt effects on the visual reproduction of orientations and the Class 2 oblique effect (E. A. Essock, 1980) were examined. Body tilts indicate whether the oblique effect (i.e., lower performance in oblique orientations than in vertical-horizontal orientations) is defined in an egocentric or a gravitational reference frame. Results showed that the oblique effect observed in upright posture disappeared in tilted conditions, mainly due to a decrease in the precision of the vertical and horizontal settings. In tilted conditions, the subjective visual vertical proved to be the orientation reproduced the most precisely. Thus, the oblique effect seemed to be not purely gravitationally or egocentrically defined but, rather, to depend on a subjective gravitational reference frame tilted in the same direction as body tilts.     

Orientation contrast effects in the rod-and-frame test

Previous research indicates that a tilted visual display is capable of inducing eye torsion and an illusion of self-tilt in objectively upright observers. These effects may contribute to performance errors on the rod-and-frame test by rotating the perceived axes of visual space toward the tilted frame. The kinesthetic-matching method was used in the present study to see whether an effect of the visual orientation contrast between red and frame sides might also contribute to rod-and-frame test performance. Observers aligned invisible hand-held rods with the visual rod at various tilts under a control condition when the frame was absent, and under experimental conditions with the frame upright or set at 45°. The frame induced matching errors in the direction away from the frame sides which were most nearly parallel to the rod. Since no rotation of apparent visual axes should occur under these conditions, the data suggest that an orientation contrast effect is involved in the rod-and-frame test.     

The perception of verticality and the frame of reference of the visual tilt aftereffect

Previous research has suggested that the visual tilt aftereffect operates according to a gravitational frame of reference. Three experiments were conducted to test this conclusion further. In each experiment, observers (with head upright) adjusted an illuminated bar to apparent vertical following various adaptation conditions. In Experiment 1, observers were given clear visual cues for objective vertical while adjusting the bar. In Experiment 2, they were not given visual cues for vertical. The adaptation conditions in Experiments 1 and 2 consisted of various combinations of head and stimulus tilt. Experiment 3 investigated the effects of head tilt alone. The results indicated that the tilt aftereffect follows a retinal frame of reference under some conditions (Experiment 1) and appears to follow a gravitational frame under others (Experiment 2). These results can be predicted by a simple model involving two factors, a purely visual aftereffect that follows a retinal frame and an extravisual aftereffect that appears to follow a gravitational frame.     

The role of frame size on vertical and horizontal observers in the rod-and-frame illusion.

The rod-and-frame illusion was used to examine a proposed distinction between the mechanism responsible for frame effects on rod-adjustment errors with large displays and the mechanism responsible for errors with small displays. It was suggested that visual-vestibular mechanisms are involved only when the rod is surrounded by a large tilted frame. Errors in the perceived vertical with small frame would instead be due to purely visual mechanisms. To examine this dual process model, we compared errors at small and large frame when the body was vertical or horizontal. There is evidence to suggest that tilting the body affects visual-vestibular interactions, but there is no reason to expect that body tilt would affect intravisual interactions. Hence, we hypothesized that body tilt would increase errors for large frame, but not for small frame. Eight subjects were tested in four different conditions, corresponding to the combination of two body orientations (vertical versus horizontal) and two frame sizes (47.5 versus 10.5 deg of visual angle). Fourier analysis of data was performed. Repeated measures ANOVA tested the hypothesis about frame size and body orientation. The hypothesis was not confirmed. More specifically, we found that tilting the body increased errors for the small frame as well as for the large frame. The interaction between frame size and body orientation was not significant. Results are discussed in relation to the proposed dual-process model.     

Theangular function of arod-and-frame illusion

It was predicted that vertical settings of a rod surrounded by a square frame would be in error in the direction of the frame axis closest to true vertical as the frame varied in tilt. Results were in accord with this hypothesis. The implications of the results are discussed.     

Differences between right versus left lateral body tilt in its effect on the visual and tactual perception of verticality

Summary Ninety six Ss were subjected to lateral body tilt, ranging from 10° to 90° to the right and to the left, and indicated the visual vertical (by means of a luminescent rod) and the tactual vertical (by means of a metal bar) in a darkroom. There were significant differences for deviations of apparent from true vertical in both series between body tilt to the right versus to the left. With tilts to the right, apparent vertical deviated more opposite the direction of tilt, the E-phenomenon, or less in the direction of tilt, the A-phenomenon, as compared with tilts to the left.This study was supported, in part, by a Public Health Service Research Grant, MH 00348, from the National Institute of Mental Health, while the author was a NATO research fellow at Clark University, Worcester, MA; and in part by a Federal Grant, MR HD 06276, to the Children's Hospital Medical Center, while the author was a research fellow in child psychiatry at Harvard University, School of Medicine, Boston, MA.     

Field dependence and the role of visual frameworks in the perception of size

The extent to which apparent size is relationally determined has been studied by Rock and Ebenholtz and by Wenderoth, who came to widely differing conclusions as to the magnitude of this phenomenon. In both studies, a large range of individual differences was observed. In the present study, an attempt was made to account for variations in the influence of visual contexts on the perception of size by relating them to the cognitive style dimension of field dependence/independence. In two situations, relativelyfield-dependent observers made size judgments which were influenced by a frame surrounding the target figure, while relatively field-independent observers made size judgments which were influenced by a frame surrounding the target figure, while relatively field-independent observers tended to be less influenced by the frame, making their judgments approximate the retinal size of the target. The results suggest that assessment of the magnitude of the relational determination of apparent size must consider the cognitive style of the observers as well as situational variations.     

The rod-and-frame illusion in erect and supine observers

Previous studies have found that the effect of a tilted frame on egocentric rod adjustments is greater when an overhead display in a horizontal plane is viewed from a supine body position than when a vertical display is viewed from an erect body position. The present studies were designed to see whether this phenomenon could be attributed to an intravisual orientation contrast effect or to the effects of visually induced eye torsion. No significant erect-supine differences were found on measures of either effect. Errors in the direction of frame tilt were significantly greater in the supine position when observers were asked to align a visible rod or an unseen hand-held disk with the head, but no effect of body position was found in matching the orientation of the disk with the rod. The data suggest that erect-supine differences in frame effects are not attributable simply to intravisual factors. The results are discussed in terms used by Harris (1974) to describe “straight-ahead shifts” in judging spatial directions with respect to the median plane.     

Large errors in the perception of vertically are generated by luminance borders (integrated across space) not by subjective borders

The rod-and-frame illusion shows large errors in the judgment of visual vertical in the dark if the frame is large and there are no other visible cues (Witkin and Asch, 1948 Journal of Experimental Psychology 38 762-782). Three experiments were performed to investigate other characteristics of the frame critical for generating these large errors. In the first experiment, the illusion produced by an 11 degrees tilted frame made by luminance borders (standard condition) was considerably larger than that produced by a subjective-contour frame. In the second experiment, with a 33 degrees frame tilt, the illusion was in the direction of frame tilt with a luminance-border frame but in the opposite direction in the subjective-contour condition. In the third experiment, to contrast the role of local and global orientation, the sides of the frame were made of short separate luminous segments. The segments could be oriented in the same direction as the frame sides, in the opposite direction, or could be vertical. The orientation of the global frame dominated the illusion while local orientation produced much smaller effects. Overall, to generate a large rod-and-frame illusion in the dark, the tilted frame must have luminance, not subjective, contours. Luminance borders do not need to be continuous: a frame made of sparse segments is also effective. The mechanism responsible for the large orientation illusion is driven by integrators of orientation across large areas, not by figural operators extracting shape orientation in the absence of oriented contours.     

Testing the tilt-constancy theory of visual illusions

Prinzmetal and Beck (2001) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27 206 - 217) argued that a subset of visual illusions is caused by the same mechanisms that are responsible for the perception of vertical and horizontal a theory they referred to as the tilt-constancy theory of visual illusions. They argued that these illusions should increase if the observer's head or head and body are tilted because extra reliance would then be placed on the illusion-inducing local visual context. Exactly that result had previously been reported in the case of the tilted-room and the rod-and-frame illusions. Prinzmetal and Beck reported similar increases in the tilt illusion (TI), as well as the Z?llner, Poggendorff, and Ponzo illusions. In two experiments, we re-examined the effect of head tilt on the TI. In experiment 1, we used more conventional TI stimuli, more standard experimental methods, and a more complete experimental design than Prinzmetal and Beck, and additionally extended the investigation to attraction as well as repulsion effects. Experiment 2 more closely replicated the Prinzmetal and Beck stimuli. Although we found that head tilt did increase TIs in both experiments, the increases were of the order of 1 degrees -2 degrees, more modest than the 7 degrees reported by Prinzmetal and Beck. Significantly, the TI increase was larger when inducing tilts and head tilts were in the same direction than when they were in opposite directions, suggesting that the tilt-constancy theory may be oversimplified. In addition, because previous evidence renders unlikely the claim that the Poggendorff illusion can be explained simply in terms of misperceived orientation of the transversals, the question arises whether there might be some other explanation for the increase in the Z?llner, Poggendorff, and Ponzo illusions with body tilt that Prinzmetal and Beck reported.     

The effect of variation of frame shape on the angular function of the rod-and-frame illusion

The angular function of the rod-and-frame illusion was studied under conditions of variation in frame shape. The results support predictions arising from the hypothesis that as a frame is varied in tilt, vertical settings of a rod will be in error in the direction of the major frame axis closest to true vertical.     

Effects of varying the apparent tilt of the inspection figure on a kinaesthetic after-effect

Three experiments were conducted to determine whether kinaesthetic after-effects, measured by settings of a bar to the horizontal, are controlled by the apparent or the physical tilt of the bar during inspection. Two arrangements were used to induce a discrepancy between apparent and physical tilt. Data obtained with one arrangement did not permit a proper test of the issue. With the other arrangement either distorted or undistorted visual information about tilt was present during kinaesthetic inspection. It was found that post-inspection settings were displaced from pre-inspection settings in the direction of the tilt of the inspection figure when there was no discrepancy between information presented by the two modalities. When there was a discrepancy, the displacements attributable to apparent tilt were in the direction opposite to the apparent tilt of the inspection figure. The former effects dissipated rapidly after inspection; the latter did not. It is suggested that after-effects obtained following an inspection period during which there is no discrepancy between physical and apparent tilt are controlled by the physical tilt of the inspection figure and that apparent tilt, when it is an effective variable, operates by modifying the judgemental frame of reference.     

Absence of depth processing in the large-frame rod-and-frame effect

Attenuation of the rod-and-frame effect (RFE) with depth separation (Gogel & Newton, 1975) was investigated with the rod and frame in either intersecting or parallel depth planes (PDP). In the former case, in which either the top of the rod or the frame was inclined 45 deg away from the observer, no attenuation was found for frames projecting a retinal angle of 39.2 or 13.5 deg. In the PDP paradigm, the rod was optically 60 cm nearer the observer than was the frame. The depth adjacency effect of Gogel and Newton was replicated, but only for small retinal angles (7.2 and 6.8 deg) of the frame and for a 15-deg frame tilt, but not for larger retinal angles (39.2 and 12.7 deg) or for frames tilted at 22 deg. The absence of attenuation with depth separation in large frames and its presence in small frames is consistent with the identification of these phenomena with properties of the ambient and focal visual systems, respectively (Leibowitz & Post, 1982).     

Orientation illusions vary in size and direction as a function of task-dependent attention

Adding an upright inner square frame to an outer tilted square frame causes a central rod's perceived orientation to be directionally opposite the usual rod-and-frame illusion (RFI). Zoccolotti, Antonucci, Daini, Martelli, and Spinelli (1997) attributed this double RFI (DRFI) to Rock's (1990) hierarchical organization principle. In Experiment 1, this explanation predicted results for small (11 degrees ) but not larger (22 degrees and 33 degrees ) outer frame orientations. In two experiments with the DRFI, bottom-up, goal-driven attention was varied and direct and indirect measures of the framework's influence were compared. In Experiment 2, the RFI angular function was compared with two other DRFI conditions: a direct measure of perceived rod orientation and an indirect measure of the inner frame. These conditions induced directionally opposite effects. In Experiment 3, direct and indirect measures of the inner frame's perceived tilt were compared. Angular functions differing in size and direction were obtained. Experiment 4 replicated the previous results, using a different psychophysical procedure. All the results were consistent with the hierarchical organization mechanism but suggested different processing strategies due to different attentional weights. They were also consistent with other recent findings based on the Bayesian approach to accounts of illusory phenomena (e.g., Jazayeri & Movshon, 2006, 2007; Weiss, Simoncelli, & Adelson, 2002).     

The differential effects of brief exposures and surrounding contours on direct and indirect tilt illusions

Four experiments in which logarithmic intervals between 25 and 1600 ms were used for stimulus duration in tests for the tilt illusion are reported. It is demonstrated that the direct and the indirect tilt illusions both increase in magnitude inversely with length of stimulus presentation. The data suggest that whereas the direct effect peaks with a value of about +7 degrees at the shortest flash duration used (25 ms), peak indirect effects (of about +2 degrees) do not occur at this duration. In addition, whereas direct effects level out after 100 ms stimulus exposure times, to the usual magnitude obtained with long presentations (about +2 degrees), indirect effects reach their standard magnitude (-0.5 degrees to -1.0 degrees) later, at exposures of about 400 ms. Even at very short flash durations, a luminance square frame surrounding the illusion display reduces the indirect effect by two thirds of its magnitude but has no effect at all on the direct effect. It is suggested that direct effects arise early in visual processing, in area V1, where there are transient mechanisms and where corruption of orientation analysis by the inducing grating would occur prior to later, extrastriate, global analysis of the surrounding peripheral frame. Indirect effects, on the other hand, may arise later, along the sustained parvocellular colour-form pathway, where more global processing occurs and susceptibility to surrounding fields might be expected.     

How do visual and postural cues combine for self-tilt perception during slow pitch rotations?

Self-orientation perception relies on the integration of multiple sensory inputs which convey spatially-related visual and postural cues. In the present study, an experimental set-up was used to tilt the body and/or the visual scene to investigate how these postural and visual cues are integrated for self-tilt perception (the subjective sensation of being tilted). Participants were required to repeatedly rate a confidence level for self-tilt perception during slow (0.05°·s^− 1) body and/or visual scene pitch tilts up to 19° relative to vertical. Concurrently, subjects also had to perform arm reaching movements toward a body-fixed target at certain specific angles of tilt. While performance of a concurrent motor task did not influence the main perceptual task, self-tilt detection did vary according to the visuo-postural stimuli. Slow forward or backward tilts of the visual scene alone did not induce a marked sensation of self-tilt contrary to actual body tilt. However, combined body and visual scene tilt influenced self-tilt perception more strongly, although this effect was dependent on the direction of visual scene tilt: only a forward visual scene tilt combined with a forward body tilt facilitated self-tilt detection. In such a case, visual scene tilt did not seem to induce vection but rather may have produced a deviation of the perceived orientation of the longitudinal body axis in the forward direction, which may have lowered the self-tilt detection threshold during actual forward body tilt.     

Visual tilt normalization: The method of kinesthetic matching

Changes in the apparent tilt of a visual line over time were tracked by matching the orientation of a rod held in the hands. The degree of overestimation of 20-deg tilts diminished over time by about 2 deg. This occurred even though the adaptation line was exposed intermittently with a 1∶3 on/off ratio.     

Perceptual assumptions and projective distortions in a three-dimensional shape illusion

We examine a shape illusion, in which the balconies of a building appear to tilt up or down, depending on the viewpoint. The balconies are actually level parallelogram shapes, but appear as tilted rectangles. We measured the illusory tilts observed when parallelogram shapes are viewed above the line of sight, using three-dimensional stimuli consisting of parallelograms of various tilts viewed at different orientations. Under perspective projection, parallelism and orthogonality are not preserved. However, perspective distortions alone cannot account for the perceived tilts measured in these experiments, since observers perceived illusory tilts even for stimuli in the frontoparallel plane. We introduce a model, based on the theory that observers assume ambiguously projected three-dimensional angles to be equal to 90 degrees, but revise their predictions on the basis of observation. In the model, perceived tilt is predicted as a weighted sum of the tilts predicted by the assumptions that the shape is rectangular, and that the shape is level (i.e. that the angle between the shape and the vertical backboard is equal to 90 degrees). We prove that it is mathematically impossible for a planar rectangle to share a projection with a nonrectangular parallelogram. A less restrictive assumption that just the two leading internal angles are equal to 90 degrees is suggested as an alternative, and it is further proven that this new configuration of angles leads to a unique perceived tilt. The relative weights in the model reflect the amount that each prediction is revised, and are shown to vary systematically with stimulus orientation. For some observers a better fit was found by replacing the level-tilt assumptions with an assumption that physical tilt was equal to the projected tilt.     

Egocentric localization of the visual horizontal in normal and labyrinthine-defective observers as a function of head and body tilt

Perception of the visual horizontal by observers in five different combinations of head and body position was studied to determine the effect of 20-degree body tilts. Both normal and labyrinthine-defective observers made five settings to the visual horizontal for each condition using, a goggle device which presented a collimated line of light to the right eye while the other eye was covered. The results showed no significant constant errors in the settings by either group, and it is suggested that the absence of the E-phenomenon was due primarily to adequate contact cues and kinesthetic cues. The data also make it clear that vestibular information is not required for veridical perception of the visual horizontal under these experimental conditions.