The two orange circles are exactly the same size; however, the left circle Seems less.
Ebbinghaus illusion(Ebbinghaus) or Titchener circles- optical illusion of perception of relative sizes. The most known version This illusion consists of two circles, identical in size, being placed side by side, with circles around one of them. big size, while the other is surrounded by small circles; in this case, the first circle seems smaller than the second.
The illusion is named after the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850-1909) who discovered it. IN English-speaking environment it became popular thanks to the textbook published in 1901 experimental psychology Titchener; This is where another name for illusion comes from - "Titchener circles".
Although it is generally believed that this optical illusion is related to perception sizes, recently an opinion has emerged that the critical factor in the occurrence of this illusion is the distance of the central circle from the other circles surrounding it, and the closedness of the ring, which makes it possible to consider the Ebbinghaus illusion as a type of Delboeuf illusion ( English Delboeuf illusion). If the surrounding circles are close to the center circle, it appears larger, and conversely, if they are farther apart, the center circle appears smaller. Apparently, the size of the outer circles determines how close they can be to the center circle, leading to confusion between the two measures (size and distance) in many studies.
The Ebbinghaus illusion plays key role in modern scientific debates about the existence in the visual cortex of two separate streams of information processing related to the processes of perception (recognition) and execution of actions ( for more details see Two Streams hypothesis(English)). The Ebbinghaus illusion has been proven to distort perception size, but when the subject must respond to visual image action, such as grasping, the dimensions of an object are perceived without distortion. However, a relatively recent publication has appeared claiming that the original experiments were carried out with large errors. In these experiments, the stimuli limited the possibility of error in the act of grasping, thereby making the grasping response more accurate. In addition, two versions of the stimulus - visually large and small - were presented in isolation (that is, there was no second central circle serving for comparison), due to which, according to V. Franz et al., results were obtained that indicate absence of illusion. The authors of the mentioned publication conclude that the Ebbinghaus illusion introduces distortions, regardless of the specific channel (path) of processing visual information (« recognition" or " action»).
Perceptions of relative sizes. The most famous version of this illusion is that two circles, identical in size, are placed side by side, with large circles around one of them, while the other is surrounded by small circles; in this case, the first circle seems smaller than the second.
The illusion is named after the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850-1909) who discovered it. In the English-speaking environment, it became popular thanks to Titchener’s textbook on experimental psychology, published in 1901; This is where another name for illusion comes from - "Titchener circles" .
Although it is generally believed that this optical illusion is related to perception sizes, recently an opinion has emerged that the critical factor in the occurrence of this illusion is the distance of the central circle from the other circles surrounding it, and the closedness of the ring, which makes it possible to consider the Ebbinghaus illusion as a type of Delboeuf illusion. If the surrounding circles are close to the center circle, it appears larger, and conversely, if they are farther apart, the center circle appears smaller. Apparently, the size of the outer circles determines how close they can be to the center circle, leading to confusion between the two measures (size and distance) in many studies.
The Ebbinghaus illusion plays a key role in modern scientific debate about the existence in the visual cortex of two separate streams of information processing related to the processes of perception (recognition) and execution of actions ( for more details, see: Hypothesis of two streams of visual information processing). The Ebbinghaus illusion has been proven to distort perception size, but when the subject must respond to a visual image action, such as grasping, the dimensions of an object are perceived without distortion. However, a relatively recent publication has appeared claiming that the original experiments were carried out with large errors. In these experiments, the stimuli limited the possibility of error in the act of grasping, thereby making the grasping response more accurate. In addition, two versions of the stimulus - visually large and small - were presented in isolation (that is, there was no second central circle serving for comparison), due to which, according to V. Franz et al., results were obtained that indicate absence of illusion. The authors of the mentioned publication conclude that the Ebbinghaus illusion introduces distortions, regardless of the specific channel (pathway) of processing visual information (“ recognition" or " action»).
In another modern work it is argued that susceptibility to this illusion, as well as the Ponzo illusion, is positively influenced by the size of the primary visual cortex of a particular individual.
In animals
There is information that some species of birds (chickens, pigeons, muslins, gray parrots) are susceptible to the Ebbinghaus illusion (as well as some others).
see also
- Delboeuf illusion
Notes
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what the “Ebbinghaus Illusion” is in other dictionaries:
Moon setting behind the rocks of Zion ... Wikipedia
illusion- (illusion of perception) inadequate reflection of the perceived object and its properties; distortion of the perception of particular characteristics of certain objects or images. Sometimes this is the name given to the very configurations of stimuli that cause such perception.... ...
Moonrise over the rocks of Zion Full moon The Moon illusion ("lunar illusion") is an optical illusion in which the perceived size of the Moon is approximately one and a half times larger when it is low on the horizon compared to when it... ... Wikipedia
illusions of perception- (from Latin illusio error, delusion) inadequate reflection of a perceived object and its properties. Sometimes the term “I. V." They name the very configurations of stimuli that cause such inadequate perception. Currently the most... Great psychological encyclopedia
Fig.1. Human brain, rear view. Brodmann area 17 (primary visual cortex) is indicated in red; orange field 18; yellow field 19 ... Wikipedia
The science of mental reality, how an individual perceives, perceives, feels, thinks and acts. For a deeper understanding human psyche psychologists are researching mental regulation animal behavior and functioning of such... ... Collier's Encyclopedia
Don't Believe Your Eyes: A Guide to Optical Illusions
Try to imagine that the evolution of life on the planet took a different path and animals (including you and me) were unable to acquire such a sense as vision. Does not work? No wonder - we are so used to relying on our eyes that we cannot even imagine what it would be like the world without optical component. Despite the importance of vision, it is not so perfect - for example, some combinations of signals can “outsmart” the brain (as we know, we “see” with neurons, not with our eyes), forcing a person to get confused about the size of objects or guess “movement” in a static image . Now, attention! Sit comfortably, “turn off” all senses except vision and focus on the screen - we will talk about optical illusions.
Classic optical illusions
The history of optical illusions goes back thousands of years; back in 350 BC, Aristotle wrote: “Our senses can be trusted, but they are still easy to deceive.” Great thinker noticed that if you look at a waterfall for a while, and then turn your gaze to a stationary mountain slope, the rocks may appear to be moving in the opposite direction of the flow. Modern researchers This optical phenomenon is called the motion aftereffect or the illusion of a waterfall.
When we watch the flow of water, some of the neurons in our brain adapt to the unidirectional movement of light signals, as a result, when looking after a waterfall at a static object, we continue to “see” movement for some time, only in the opposite direction.
Illusion of relative size perception
Ebbinghaus illusionIn the 19th century, active study of the properties of perception and the characteristics of the human sense organs began. It was then that researchers developed optical illusions that are now considered classic, primarily the Ebbinghaus illusion.
Even if you are not too interested in the history of psychology, it is probably familiar to you, take a look at the picture. You, of course, understand that the sizes of the orange circles are the same, since you have seen such illusions a thousand times, but your eyes still lie to you - for a split second you get the feeling that they are still different. The human brain determines the size of objects and images based on the size of adjacent objects and inevitably falls into the trap - against the background of large black circles, orange appears smaller than next to small circles.
Depth perception illusion
At the beginning of the 20th century, Italian psychologist Mario Ponzo was one of the first scientists to demonstrate to the world that the perception of the size of objects is influenced not only by adjacent objects, but also by the depth of the background. The Italian developed the classic illusion that now bears his name.
The Ponzo illusion looks very simple - between two inclined lines there are two identical horizontal ones, while one of them is perceived as longer. Slanted lines create perspective, the brain believes that the upper horizontal line is located “further” than the lower one and makes an adjustment for the “distance” - due to this, a curious effect occurs.
"Magic" Müller-Lyer lines
Another textbook optical illusion, which is more than a hundred years old, is the Müller-Lyer illusion. Its essence is also quite simple - the figure shows lines with arrows at the ends; the one framed by the “tails” of the arrows seems larger.
Scientists are still arguing about the mechanism by which the illusion occurs; currently, the following interpretation is the most popular. The brain interprets three converging lines as part of a three-dimensional object, while the lines forming a “tip” are perceived as a closer object (say, the corner of a building when viewed from the outside). “Tail” arrows, in turn, create the illusion of a distant object (“room corner”). As with the Ponzo illusion, the brain “compensates for distance” to the object, causing the lines to appear different.
Helmholtz's riddle
Surprises are presented to the brain not only by converging lines, but also by parallel vertical or horizontal ones. At the end of the 19th century German physicist and the physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz showed that the lined horizontal lines the square looks wider and lower than exactly the same one, but made up of vertical lines.
The phenomenon discovered by Helmholtz is widely used in the production of clothing, however, contrary to popular misconception, horizontal stripes on sweaters and dresses do not “fatten”, but exactly the opposite - they visually make the figure narrower and taller. Glossy fashion magazines often contain advice like: “Wear clothes with vertical stripes to look slimmer,” but science mercilessly refutes this. Take a look at the Helmholtz illusion and see for yourself that the effect is exactly the opposite.
It is worth noting that this optical illusion has been studied far and wide, but scientists cannot yet come to a conclusion unanimous opinion about the mechanisms of its occurrence.
Classic early illusions turned people's ideas about the world around them upside down - as it turned out, you can't always “believe your eyes.” Nicholas Wead, a specialist in the history of optical illusions from the University of Dundee (Scotland), is confident that optical illusions have played a significant role in the study of the properties of perception: “By creating illusions, scientists realized that even understanding the mechanism of the eyes does not provide a holistic understanding of the nature of vision.” Wade notes that the pioneers of optical illusions attempted to combine them into one general theory, however, they were not successful. As it was later discovered, the human brain’s reactions to optical illusions are much more complex and varied than what researchers saw at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Illusions in the 20th century
In the “age of wars and revolutions,” humanity has witnessed many breakthroughs in ideas about the nature of optical illusions. Advances in science and technology have given specialists the opportunity to look at the problem differently. Let's say that the experiments of Thorsten Wiesel and David Hubel proved what kind of perception different zones different neurons are responsible for the visual field - for this discovery, researchers in 1981 were awarded Nobel Prize in medicine.
A little later than scientists, artists took up visual distortions - in the 1950s, a whole movement in art appeared dedicated to optical illusions, it was called op art (from the English optical art - “optical art”). The French artist and sculptor Victor Vasarely is considered one of the founders of op art; his works are often cited as bright examples optical illusions.
Illusions of our time
At the beginning of the 21st century, interest in visual distortions continues to grow - new scientific theories, with the help of which scientists are trying to explain the mechanisms of optical illusions. According to one of them, distortions occur due to the fact that human brain constantly “predicts” the image to compensate for the delay between the event itself and the moment of its perception. For example, while you are reading this article, your brain is processing light signals coming from a computer monitor or gadget screen. This requires certain time, so in a way you are not seeing the present, but the past.
Neuroscientist Mark Changizi believes that the brain's attempts to "anticipate" a picture explain some visual distortions.
Experiments by Changizi and his colleagues from the Californian Institute of Technology show that this theory is not contradicted by any of the classical optical illusions. Among the most illustrative examples“predictions” of images by the brain Changizi calls the famous Hering illusion. When a person moves forward, the objects he sees move along radial lines, so the brain tends to perceive such images as a sign of movement in space. “These mechanisms work great in real life, but they also force the brain to make mistakes when a person sees radial lines and at the same time remains in place,” notes the researcher.
Necker cube and other “whims” of the brain
The invention of magnetic resonance imaging was a real gift for researchers of optical illusions - science was finally able to at least general outline understand what happens in the human brain when they are perceived. Thus, by studying the brain activity of a person looking at a Necker cube, scientists concluded that the brain ambiguously perceives the depth of the image. The neurons seem to be “arguing” among themselves which picture should be considered “true”, as a result the observer sees the cube in one position or another.
The situation is similar with another well-known optical illusion - the so-called Herman grid. Take a look at the image - with your peripheral vision you “see” gray dots at the intersection of white lines, but as soon as you focus your gaze on one “gray dot”, it immediately “disappears”. According to one of the most popular explanations for this phenomenon among scientists, there is a continuous “struggle” among neurons to process dark and light areas of the image, which causes a person to “notice” flickering dots.
The latest ideas about illusions
Thanks to modern methods research, humanity knows that the perception of shades of color, shapes of objects and their movement in space are responsible different areas brain, but how we get a holistic image remains largely a mystery. Enthusiasts are developing more and more new ways to deceive the eye, reinterpreting and complementing classic illusions. By looking at them, we diligently “allow” our own brain to mislead us, and as a result, more questions arise than answers.
Nowadays, interest in the problem is so high that for the past ten years, experts have annually held a competition for the best optical illusion. For example, in 2014 this award was given to the dynamic Ebbinghaus illusion, which deceives the eye much more convincingly than the classic static version. According to neurologist Suzanne Martinez-Conde, who is part of the competition jury, due to constant change size of adjacent objects, the effect of the new illusion is several times stronger than that of a still image proposed by Hermann Ebbinghaus.
Martinez-Conde admits that most of Modern research into optical illusions builds on the work done by 19th-century scientists. For example, Hermann Helmholtz was the first to understand that human eyes constantly make rapid coordinated movements, so-called saccades. To understand what we are talking about, close one eye and lightly press your finger on the lower eyelid of the other - the “picture” that your brain sees will immediately begin to move. In ordinary life, we do not notice these microscopic “twitches”, because the brain has long ago learned to smooth out the image, but when it is faced with an unusual situation ( mechanical impact on the eyeball), saccades manifest themselves in all their glory.
According to Suzanne, it is saccades that play a key role in the famous “Rotating Snakes” illusion, which was developed by the Japanese psychiatrist Akioshi Kitaoka. In experiments with Snakes, Martinez-Conde and her colleagues found that when looking at the illusion, the same neurons are activated as when looking out of the window of a fast-moving train, when the landscape seems to be “passing by”, rather than vice versa. Moreover, if, with the help of some tricks, the observer is forced to stop saccades, the illusion disappears.
Ebbinghaus illusion or Titchener circle- an optical illusion of perception of relative sizes. The most famous version of this illusion is that when two circles of identical size are placed side by side, with one surrounded by large circles while the other is surrounded by small circles, the first circle appears smaller than the second.
History and interpretations
The illusion is named after the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850-1909), who first described this phenomenon. In the English-speaking environment, it became popular thanks to Titchener’s textbook of experimental psychology, published in 1901, hence another name for illusion - "Titchener circles".
It is generally believed that this optical illusion is related to the perception sizes, However, recently the idea has appeared that the critical factor in the occurrence of this illusion is the distance of the central circle from other chains surrounding it, and the closedness of the ring, allows us to consider the Ebbinghaus illusion as a type of Delboeuf illusion. If the surrounding circles are close to the center circle, it appears large, and conversely, if they are far apart, the center circle appears smaller. Apparently, the size of the described circles serves as a guide to how close they can be to the central circle, leading to confusion in many studies between the two indicators (size and distance).
The Ebbinghaus illusion plays a key role in contemporary scientific debate about the existence of two separate streams of information in the visual cortex concerning the processes of perception (recognition) and execution of actions. The Ebbinghaus illusion has been shown to distort the perception of size, but when the subject must respond to a visual image with an action such as grasping, the object's size is perceived without distortion. However, relatively recently a publication has appeared claiming that the original experiments were carried out with large errors. In these experiments, the stimuli limited the possibility of error in the act of grasping, which made the “grasping” response accurate. In addition, two versions of the stimulus - visually large and small - arose in isolation (that is, there was no second central circle that would serve for comparison), therefore, according to V. Franz et al., results were obtained that indicate the absence illusions. The authors of the mentioned publication conclude that the Ebbinghaus illusion introduces distortions, regardless of the specific channel (path) of processing visual information (“recognition” or “action”).
In a different modern research it is argued that susceptibility to this illusion, as well as the Ponzi illusion, is positively influenced by the size of the primary visual cortex a specific individual.
In animals
There is evidence that some species of birds (chickens, pigeons, porcupines, gray parrots) are prone to the Ebbinghaus illusion (as well as a number of others).