Previous investigations have shown that the magnitude of the Müller-Lyer illusion is a function of the linear and angular dimensions of the figure. If the Müller-Lyer and Poggendorff illusions share a common basis, then the magnitude of the Poggendorff illusion should similarly be a function of the analogous configural dimensions. A study is reported in which changes were made in the dimensions of the Poggendorff figure that are analogous to the dimensions of the Müller-Lyer figure: (i) the length of the parallel components (analogous to the wings of the Müller-Lyer figure); (ii) the length of the intertransversal extent (analogous to Müller-Lyer shaft length); and (iii) the angle formed between the parallel components and the intertransversal extent (analogous to the angle of wing attachment in the Müller-Lyer figure). The relationship between the magnitude of the illusion and the dimensions of the Poggendorff figure was found to be generally in line with previous findings relating to the Müller-Lyer illusion. Adaptation-level theory and the positive-context model accommodate the major findings of the present study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN H, 1970“Averaging model applied to the size–weight illusion”Perception & Psychophysics81–4.
2.
BrigellMUhlarikJ, 1980“Bending the parallels of the Poggendorff figure”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society161–4.
3.
BrigellMUhlarikJGoldhornP, 1977“Contextual influences on judgments of linear extent”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3105–118.
4.
ChristieP S, 1975“Asymmetry in the Müller-Lyer illusion: Artifact or genuine effect?”Perception4453–457.
5.
ClavadetscherJ EAndersonN H, 1977“Comparative judgment: Tests of two theories using the Baldwin figure”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3119–135.
6.
CooperM RRunyonR P, 1970“Error increase and decrease in minimal form of Müller-Lyer illusion”Perceptual and Motor Skills31535–538.
7.
CorenS, 1970“Lateral inhibition and geometric illusions”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology22274–278.
8.
CorenSGirgusJ S, 1978Seeing Is Deceiving: The Psychology of Visual Illusions (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
CorenSWardL MPoracCFraserR, 1978“The effect of optical blur on visual-geometric illusions”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society11390–392.
11.
DayR HDickinsonR G, 1976a“Apparent length of the arms of acute and obtuse angles, and the components of the Müller-Lyer illusion”Australian Journal of Psychology28137–148.
12.
DayR HDickinsonR G, 1976b“The components of the Poggendorff illusion”British Journal of Psychology67537–552.
13.
DayR HDickinsonR G, 1979“Relative magnitude of apparent misalignment in acute-angle and oblique-line figures”Perception & Psychophysics25244–246.
14.
ErlebacherASekulerR, 1969“Explanation of the Müller-Lyer illusion: Confusion theory examined”Journal of Experimental Psychology80462–467.
15.
GillamB, 1971“A depth processing theory of the Poggendorff illusion”Perception & Psychophysics10211–216.
16.
GirgusJ SCorenSFraenkelR, 1975“Levels of perceptual processing in the development of visual illusions”Developmental Psychology11268–273.
17.
Greist-BousquetSSchiffmanH R, 1981a“The Poggendorff illusion: An illusion of linear extent?”Perception10155–164.
18.
Greist-BousquetSSchiffmanH R, 1981b“The many illusions of the Müller-Lyer: Comparisons of the wings-in and wings-out illusions and manipulations of standard and dot forms”Perception10147–154.
19.
Greist-BousquetSSchiffmanH R, 1981c“The role of structural components in the Müller-Lyer illusion”Perception & Psychophysics30505–511.
20.
HelsonH, 1964Adaptation-Level Theory (New York: Harper & Row).
21.
HillA L, 1971“Poggendorff illusion: Effects of intelligence, viewing distance, and space between the vertical lines”Psychonomic Science2571–72.
22.
JuddC H, 1899“A study of geometrical illusions”Psychological Review6241–261.
23.
LeibowitzH WGwozdeckiJ, 1967“The magnitude of the Poggendorff illusion as a function of age”Child Development38573–580.
24.
LuckieshM, 1922/1965Visual Illusions: Their Causes, Characteristics and Applications (New York: Dover).
25.
MacKayD CNewbiggingP L, 1977“The Poggendorff and its variants do arouse the same perceptual process”Perception & Psychophysics2126–32.
26.
PresseyA WSweeneyO, 1972“Some puzzling results on the Poggendorff illusion”Perception & Psychophysics12433–437.
27.
Quina-HollandK, 1977“Spatial distortions within the Poggendorff figure and its variants: A parametric analysis”Perception & Psychophysics21118–124.
28.
RestleF, 1978“Assimilation predicted by Adaptation-Level theory with variable weights” in Cognitive Theory Eds CastellanN JJrRestleF, vol 3 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
29.
RestleFDeckerJ, 1977“Size of the Müller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions: Theory and data”Perception & Psychophysics21489–503.
30.
RestleFGreenoJ G, 1970Introduction to Mathematical Psychology (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
31.
RobinsonJ O, 1972The Psychology of Visual Illusions (London: Hutchinson).
32.
WarrenR MBashfordJ A, 1977“Müller-Lyer illusions: Their origin in processes facilitating object recognition”Perception6615–626.
33.
WeintraubD JKrantzD H, 1971“The Poggendorff illusion: Amputations, rotations, and other perturbations”Perception & Psychophysics10257–263.
34.
WeintraubD JKrantzD JOlsonT P, 1980“The Poggendorff illusion: Consider all the angles”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance6718–725.
35.
WenderothP, 1981“Bending the Poggendorff parallels and the rules of inference: A note on Brigell and Uhlarik (1980)”Perception & Psychophysics29283–284.
36.
WenderothPJohnsonM, 1982“Visual illusions with acute and obtuse angles: Configural effects and observer strategies”Perception & Psychophysics31243–250.
37.
WenderothPWhiteDBehH, 1978“The effects of peripheral and central fixation on a Poggendorff-like vernier alignment task”Perception & Psychophysics24377–386.
38.
ZanuttiniL, 1976“A new explanation for the Poggendorff illusion”Perception & Psychophysics2029–32.
