Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?
- PMID: 27488557
- DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1133-3
Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?
Abstract
In humans, geometrical illusions are thought to reflect mechanisms that are usually helpful for seeing the world in a predictable manner. These mechanisms deceive us given the right set of circumstances, correcting visual input where a correction is not necessary. Investigations of non-human animals' susceptibility to geometrical illusions have yielded contradictory results, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms with which animals see the world may differ across species. In this review, we first collate studies showing that different species are susceptible to specific illusions in the same or reverse direction as humans. Based on a careful assessment of these findings, we then propose several ecological and anatomical factors that may affect how a species perceives illusory stimuli. We also consider the usefulness of this information for determining whether sight in different species might be more similar to human sight, being influenced by contextual information, or to how machines process and transmit information as programmed. Future testing in animals could provide new theoretical insights by focusing on establishing dissociations between stimuli that may or may not alter perception in a particular species. This information could improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind illusions, but also provide insight into how sight is subjectively experienced by different animals, and the degree to which vision is innate versus acquired, which is difficult to examine in humans.
Keywords: Geometrical illusions; Non-human animals; Visual processing.
Similar articles
-
Does monocular visual space contain planes?Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 May;134(1):40-7. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.002. Epub 2010 Jan 6. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010. PMID: 20053390
-
Illusions within an Illusion.Perception. 2015 Dec;44(12):1416-21. doi: 10.1177/0301006615599903. Epub 2015 Sep 23. Perception. 2015. PMID: 26562856
-
Binocular depth from surfaces versus volumes.J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 Aug;15(3):479-84. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.15.3.479. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989. PMID: 2527956
-
Illusions in the spatial sense of the eye: geometrical-optical illusions and the neural representation of space.Vision Res. 2008 Sep;48(20):2128-42. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2008.05.016. Epub 2008 Jul 7. Vision Res. 2008. PMID: 18606433 Review.
-
Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes.Exp Brain Res. 2002 Nov;147(2):135-44. doi: 10.1007/s00221-002-1185-7. Epub 2002 Sep 28. Exp Brain Res. 2002. PMID: 12410328 Review.
Cited by
-
Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in guppies.Curr Zool. 2020 Apr;66(2):205-213. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoz041. Epub 2019 Sep 3. Curr Zool. 2020. PMID: 32440279 Free PMC article.
-
How Illusory Is the Solitaire Illusion? Assessing the Degree of Misperception of Numerosity in Adult Humans.Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 27;7:1663. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01663. eCollection 2016. Front Psychol. 2016. PMID: 27833577 Free PMC article.
-
The Challenge of Illusory Perception of Animals: The Impact of Methodological Variability in Cross-Species Investigation.Animals (Basel). 2021 May 30;11(6):1618. doi: 10.3390/ani11061618. Animals (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34070792 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Truth is in the eye of the beholder: Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in dogs.Learn Behav. 2018 Dec;46(4):501-512. doi: 10.3758/s13420-018-0344-z. Learn Behav. 2018. PMID: 30187301 Free PMC article.
-
Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are susceptible to the Kanizsa's triangle illusion.Anim Cogn. 2022 Feb;25(1):43-51. doi: 10.1007/s10071-021-01533-0. Epub 2021 Jul 16. Anim Cogn. 2022. PMID: 34269930 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources