A study of size interactions of objects in three-dimensional space is reported. The canonical form of the Ebbinghaus illusion—test circles surrounded by large or small inducers—was used. Both monocularly visible (M) and purely cyclopean (C) objects were displayed stereoscopically to isolate the monocular and cyclopean components of the illusion. The results of two experiments indicate that: (i) depth plays a significant role when the test circles are cyclopean, but not when they are monocularly visible; and (ii) the size of C objects is affected equally by C and M inducers, but the size of M objects is affected much more strongly by M than by C inducers. In conclusion, possible explanations are offered for the main trends in the data, the most interesting of which is that cyclopean tests seem to be interacting only with the cyclopean component of monocularly visible inducers.
BarlowHBlakemoreCPettigrewJ D, 1967“The neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination”Journal of Physiology (London)193327–342
3.
BlakeR, 1995“Psychoanatomical strategies for studying human visual perception”, in Early Vision and Beyond Eds PapathomasT VChubbCGoreaAKowlerE, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 17–25
4.
BlakeRFoxRWestendorfD, 1974“Visual size constancy occurs after binocular rivalry”Vision Research14585–586
5.
CorenSGirgusJ S, 1978“Visual illusions”, in Handbook of Sensory Physiologyvolume 8 Eds HeldRLeibowitzH WTeuberH-L, (Berlin: Springer) pp 551–568
6.
FersterD, 1981“A comparison of binocular depth mechanisms in area 17 and 18 of the cat visual cortex”Journal of Physiology (London)311623–655
7.
GilchristA, 1977“Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement”Science195185–187
8.
GilchristA, 1988“Lightness contrast and failures of constancy: A common explanation”Perception & Psychophysics43415–424
9.
GlennersterARogersB J, 1993“New depth to the Müller-Lyer illusion”Perception22691–704
10.
GogelW CMershonD H, 1969“Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast”Perception & Psychophysics513–17
11.
GregoryR L, 1970The Intelligent Eye (New York: McGraw-Hill)
12.
GrossC GMishkinM, 1977“The neural basis of stimulus equivalence across retinal translations”, in Lateralization in the Nervous System Eds HarnadSDotyRJaynesJGoldbergLKrauthamerG, (New York: Academic Press) pp 109–122
13.
HochbergJ, 1963“Illusions and figural reversals without lines”, paper presented at the 4th Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Bryn Mawr, PA
14.
HolwayA FBoringE G, 1941“Determinants of apparent visual size with distance variant”American Journal of Psychology5421–37
15.
HubelD HWieselT N, 1970“Stereoscopic vision in macaque monkey”Nature (London)22541–42
16.
HurvichL MJamesonD, 1966The Perception of Brightness and Darkness (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon)
17.
JuleszB, 1971Foundations of Cyclopean Perception (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)
18.
LehmkuhleSFoxR, 1980“The effect of depth separation on metacontrast masking”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance6605–621
19.
MunkerH, 1970Farbige Gitter, Abbildung auf der Netzhaut und Übertragungstheoretische Beschreibung der FarbwahrnehmungHabilitationsschrift, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Germany
20.
NikaraTBishopP OPettigrewJ D, 1968“Analysis of retinal correspondence by studying receptive fields of binocular single units in cat striate cortex”Experimental Brain Research6353–372
21.
PattersonRBowdCPhinneyRFoxRLehmkuhleS, 1996“Disparity tuning of the stereoscopic (cyclopean) motion aftereffect”Vision Research36975–983
22.
PattersonRFoxR, 1983“Depth separation and the Ponzo illusion”Perception and Psychophysics3425–28
23.
PapertS, 1961“Centrally produced geometrical illusions”Nature (London)191733
24.
PoggioG F, 1995“Stereoscopic processing in monkey visual cortex: A review”, in Early Vision and Beyond Eds PapathomasT VChubbCGoreaAKowlerE, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 43–53
25.
PoggioG FFisherB, 1977“Binocular interaction and depth sensitivity in striate and prestriate cortex of behaving rhesus monkeys”Journal of Neurophysiology401392–1407
26.
ReganD, 1986“Form from motion parallax and form from luminance contrast: Vernier discrimination”Spatial Vision1305–318
27.
ReganD, 1989“Orientation discrimination for objects defined by relative motion contrast and objects defined by luminance contrast”Vision Research291389–1400
28.
ReganD, 1994“Shape discrimination for rectangles defined by disparity alone, by disparity plus luminance and by disparity plus motion”Vision Research342277–2291
29.
ReganDBeverlyK I, 1984“Figure–ground segregation by motion contrast and by luminance contrast”Journal of the Optical Society of America A1433–442
30.
RockI, 1983The Logic of Perception (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) pp 249–254
31.
TayaREhrensteinW HCavoniusC R, 1995“Varying the strength of the Munker–White effect by stereoscopic viewing”Perception24685–694
32.
von der HeydtRAdorjaniC SHaennyPBaumgartnerG, 1978“Disparity sensitivity and receptive field incongruity of units in cat striate cortex”Experimental Brain Research31523–545
33.
WhiteM, 1979“A new effect of pattern on perceived lightness”Perception8413–416
34.
WhiteM, 1981“The effect of the nature of the surround on the perceived lightness of gray bars within square-wave test gratings”Perception10215–230
