Since its conception, the Poggendorff Figure has always been studied by considering the absolute role of the variables involved in determining the illusion (e.g. the angle or the distance between the inducer and the test stimuli). By contrast, we suggest that the role of such variables is relative to the specific conditions in which the illusory configuration is presented; in particular, we propose that multiple variables enter the computation leading to the Poggendorff Illusion, but that their relative weight varies as a function of the specific experimental conditions adopted. Here, we measured the point of subjective collinearity between the oblique lines of the Poggendorff Figure as a function of the orientation of the inducer (a square), the orientation of the test stimuli (changing the linear distance between them) and the size of the whole configuration. We found that when the inducer square was upright the illusory effect varied according to the distance between the test segments, while when the square was tilted the effect was determined only by its orientation. Critically, the latter condition led to a reversal of the “classic” illusory effect. Leveling the playing field in terms of the information available to the observer, the results indicate that the illusory effect is determined by different types of processing in different conditions of stimulus presentation.
Asch, S. E., & Witkin, H. A. (1948). Studies in space orientation: II. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 455-477. doi:10.1037/h0054121
Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1999). Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 83-101. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.83
Blackmore, C., & Carpenter, R. H., & Georgeson, M. A. (1970). Lateral inhibition between orientation detectors in the human visual system. Nature, 228, 37-39. doi:10.1038/228037a0
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 411-437. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2519
Carpenter, R. H. S., & Blakemore, C. (1973). Interactions between orientations in human vision. Experimental Brain Research, 18, 287-303. doi:10.1007/BF00234599
Coren, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Day, R. H., & Dickinson, R. G. (1976). Apparent length of the arms of acute and obtuse angles, and the components of the Muller-Lyer illusion. Australian Journal of Psychology, 28, 137-148. doi:10.1080/00049537608254638
Day, R. H., & Jolly, W. J. (1987). A note on apparent displacement of lines and dots on oblique parallels. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 187-189. doi:10.3758/BF03204880
Day, R. H., Watson, W. L., & Jolly, W. J. (1986). The Poggendorff displacement effect with only three dots. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 351-354. doi:10.3758/BF03203003
De Valois, R. L., & De Valois, K. K. (1990). Spatial vision. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
De Valois, K. K., De Valois, R. L., & Yund, E. W. (1979). Responses of striate cortex cells to grating and checkerboard patterns. The Journal of Physiology, 291, 483-505.
DiLorenzo, J., & Rock, I. (1982). The rod and frame effect as a function of the righting of the frame. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 536-546. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.536
Eagleman, D. M. (2001). Visual illusions and neurobiology. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 920-926. doi:10.1038/35104092
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal way. Nature, 415, 429-433. doi:10.1038/415429a
Fineman, M. (1996) Poggendorff’s illusion. In M. Fineman (Ed.), The nature of visual illusion (pp. 151-159). New York: Dover.
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2005). Examining the crossmodal consequences of viewing the Müller-Lyer illusion. Experimental Brain Research, 162, 490-496. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2130-8
Gibson, J. J. (1937). Adaptation, after effect and contrast in the perception of the tilted lines: II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 553-569. doi:10.1037/h0057585
Gibson, J. J., & Radner, M. (1937). Adaptation, aftereffect and contrast in the perception of the tilted lines: I. Quantitative studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 453-467. doi:10.1037/h0059826
Gregory, R. L. (1968). Visual illusions. Scientific American, 219, 66-76. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1168-66
Hering, E. (1861). Beitrage zur psychologie. Leipzig: Engleman.
Judd, C. H. (1902). Practice and its effect on the perception of illusions. Psychological Review, 9, 27-39. doi:10.1037/h0073071
Kanizsa, G. (1972). Schrumpfung von visuellen Feldern bei amodaler Erganzung. Studia Psychologica, 14, 208-210.
Kanizsa, G. (1975). Amodal completion and phenomenal shrinkage of surfaces in the visual field. Italian Journal of Psychology, 2, 187-195.
Masini, R., Costa, T., Ferraro, M., & De Marco, A. (1994). Modifications of the Poggendorff effect as a function of random dot textures between the verticals. Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 505-512. doi:10.3758/BF03205308
Matin, L., & Fox, C. R. (1989). Visually perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: Linerly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity. Vision Research, 29, 315-324. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(89)90080-1
Millar, S., & Al-Attar, Z. (2002). The Müller-Lyer illusion in touch and vision: Implications for multisensory processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 353-365. doi:10.3758/BF03194709
Parks, T. E. (2009). Demystifying the Poggendorff: A start. Perception, 38, 142-144. doi:10.1068/p5512
Porac, C. (1994). Comparison of the wings-in, wings-out, and Brentano variants of the Müller-Lyer illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 107, 69-83. doi:10.2307/1423290
Predebon, J. (2001). Spatial range of illusory effects in Müller-Lyer figures. Psychological Research, 65, 226-234. doi:10.1007/s004260100066
Pressey, A. W., & Sweeney, O. (1972). Acute angles and the Poggendorff illusion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 169-174. doi:10.1080/00335557243000049
Pressey, A. W., & Di Lollo, V. (1978). Effects of distance between standard and comparison lines on the Muller-Lyer Illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 415-419. doi:10.3758/BF03199738
Prinzmetal, W., Shimamura, A. P., & Mikolinski, M. (2001). The Ponzo illusion and the Tilt-Constancy theory. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 99-114. doi:10.3758/BF03200506
Prinzmetal, W., & Beck, D. M. (2001). The tilt constancy theory of visual illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 206-217. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.206
Purves, D., & Lotto, B. (2002). Why we see what we do: An empirical theory of vision. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Rock, I. (1990). The frame of reference. In R. Irvin (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 243-268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spence, C., & Driver J. (Eds.) (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Weintraub, D., Krantz, D., & Olson, T. (1980). The Poggendorff illusion: Consider all angles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 718-725. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.6.4.718
Wenderoth, P. (1974). The distinction between the rod-and-frame illusion and the rod-and-frame test. Perception, 3, 205-212. doi:10.1068/p030205
Wenderoth, P. (1977). An analysis of the rod-and-frame illusion and its variants, In R. H. Day, & G. V. Stanley (Eds.), Studies in perception. Perth: University of Western Australia Press.
Wenderoth, P., & Beh, H. (1977). Component analysis of orientation illusions. Perception, 6, 57-75. doi:10.1068/p060057
Wenderoth, P., & van der Zwan, R. (1991). Local and global mechanisms of one- and two-dimensional orientation illusions. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 321-332. doi:10.3758/BF03212224
Wilson, A. E., & Pressey, A. W. (1976). The role of apparent distance in the Poggendoff illusion. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 309-316. doi:10.3758/BF03199458
Zanuttini, L. (1973). Una nuova spiegazione dell'illusione di Poggendorff. (A new explanation for the Poggendorff illusion). Rivista di Psicologia, 67, 295-314.
Zanuttini, L. (1976). A new explanation for the Poggendorff illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 29-32. doi:10.3758/BF03198700
Zoccolotti, P., Antonucci, G., & Spinelli, D. (1993). The gap between the rod and the frame influences the rod-and-frame effect with small and large inducing displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 4, 14-19.