Size and Direction of Distortion in Geometric-Optical Illusions: Conciliation between the Müller-Lyer and Titchener Configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, different theories have been advanced to explain geometric-optical illusions based on various perceptual processes such as assimilation and/or contrast. Consistent with the contradictory effects of assimilation and contrast, Pressey's assimilation theory provided an explanation for the Müller-Lyer illusion, but failed to account for the Titchener (Ebbinghaus) illusion. A model that explains both Müller-Lyer and Titchener illusions according to a common underlying process may outline a unified explanation for a variety of geometric-optical illusions. In order to develop such a model, the concept of empty space is introduced as an area of the illusory figure that is not filled by line drawings. It was predicted that the magnitude of illusion would increase with the area of the empty space around the illusory figures. The effect of empty space on the magnitude of perceptual distortion was measured in Müller-Lyer figures, with outward arrowheads of different length. The results indicated an overestimation of the target stimulus in all of the figures. Nevertheless, consistent with the prediction of the present model, the horizontal line in the Müller-Lyer figure with the longest arrowheads appeared shorter than that with the shortest arrowheads, although the size contrast of these figures was the same. According to the analysis proposed in the present study, the area of empty space not only affects the magnitude of illusion but also serves as a contextual cue for the perceptual system to determine the direction of illusion (orientation). The functional relationships between the size contrast and empty space provide a common explanation for the Müller-Lyer, Titchener, and a variety of other geometric-optical illusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".