Decrement of the Müller-Lyer and Poggendorff illusions: the effects of inspection and practice

Five experiments assessed the decline or decrement in illusion magnitude for the wings-out form and the combined or Brentano form of the Müller-Lyer illusion, and for the Poggendorff illusion. Judgments were obtained under conditions of either continuous or intermittent inspection of the illusion figure. In the continuous-inspection conditions observers scanned the illusion figure during the inter-trial intervals whereas in the intermittent-inspection conditions they did not. Substantial illusion decrement was found in all continuous-inspection conditions and in intermittent conditions with short inter-trial intervals (upto 20 s) but not with longer inter-trial intervals. However, intermittent-inspection with a long inter-trial interval (40 s) produced illusion decrement but only when observers were instructed during the decrement session to ignore the wings, and pay attention to the shaft, of the Müller-Lyer figure. Taken together, the pattern of results does not support the claim that illusion decrement is primarily a product of practice or repeated trials.     

A comparison of length-matching and length-fractionation measures of Müller-lyer distortions

Two experiments were performed to evaluate the informational equivalence of length-matching (e.g., reproduction) and length-fractionation (e.g., bisection) procedures that are frequently used to quantify geometrical size distortions, such as the Müller-Lyer (M-L) illusion. In Experiment 1, the distortion in the apparent length of a horizontal test line was measured as a function of the angle between it and an abutting inducing line, and in Experiment 2 distortion was measured in the apparent length of the shaft of one-angle versions of the M-L illusion. Both procedures indexed the expansion of the obtuse-angle and the wings-out M-L illusion and the contraction of the acute-angle and the wings-in M-L illusion. However, whereas the reproduction measures indicated substantially greater expansion than contraction distortion, the bisection measures indicated greater contraction distortion. Some possible reasons for this difference, particularly the possibility that the reproduction and bisection procedures are unequally sensitive to the outputs of the mechanisms producing the M-L illusion, are discussed.     

The effect of line-figure information on the magnitude of the dot forms of the Poggendorff and Müller-Lyer illusions

The magnitudes of the dot and line forms of the Poggendorff illusion and the Brentano version of the Müller-Lyer illusion were assessed in two groups of subjects: the informed group was given information about the implied figure configuration in the dot pattern, the uninformed group was not. The informed group produced a significantly greater dot illusion than the uninformed group, and there was no difference between the two groups in the magnitudes of the line illusions. The experiments are discussed in the context of Coren and Porac's proposal that illusion-inducing mechanisms can be divided into structural and cognitive components. The results suggest that about 64% of the magnitude of the Poggendorff illusion and about 54% of the Müller-Lyer illusion can be attributed to the involvement of cognitive factors.     

The influence of object familiarity on magnitude estimates of apparent size.

Three magnitude-estimation experiments were used to determine the exponents of the power function relating size judgments and physical size for two-dimensional familiar and unfamiliar stimuli. The exponent of the power function was used to index the effect of familiar size on perceived size under a variety of conditions, from full-cue to reduced-cue viewing conditions. Although the value of the exponents varied across the three experiments, within each experiment the exponent of the familiar stimulus was not significantly different from that of the unfamiliar stimulus, indicating that familiar size does not influence the rate of growth of perceived size. The results of a fourth experiment excluded a possible explanation of the findings of experiments 1-3 in terms of subjects responding to relative angular size as a consequence of the successive presentation of the different-sized representations of the familiar stimulus. Taken together, the present findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the influence of familiar size on estimates of size mainly reflects the intrusion of nonperceptual processes in spatial responses.