↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying the Ebbinghaus figure effect: target size, context size, and target-context distance determine the presence and direction of the illusion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantifying the Ebbinghaus figure effect: target size, context size, and target-context distance determine the presence and direction of the illusion
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01679
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hester Knol, Raoul Huys, Jean-Christophe Sarrazin, Viktor K. Jirsa

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, visual illusions, like the Ebbinghaus figure, have become widespread to investigate functional segregation of the visual system. This segregation reveals itself, so it is claimed, in the insensitivity of movement to optical illusions. This claim, however, faces contradictory results (and interpretations) in the literature. These contradictions may be due to methodological weaknesses in, and differences across studies, some of which may hide a lack of perceptual illusion effects. Indeed, despite the long history of research with the Ebbinghaus figure, standardized configurations to predict the illusion effect are missing. Here, we present a complete geometrical description of the Ebbinghaus figure with three target sizes compatible with Fitts' task. Each trial consisted of a stimulus and an isolated probe. The probe was controlled by the participant's response through a staircase procedure. The participant was asked whether the probe or target appeared bigger. The factors target size, context size, target-context distance, and a control condition resulted in a 3 × 3 × 3+3 factorial design. The results indicate that the illusion magnitude, the perceptual distinctiveness, and the response time depend on the context size, distance, and especially, target size. In 33% of the factor combinations there was no illusion effect. The illusion magnitude ranged from zero to (exceptionally) 10% of the target size. The small (or absent) illusion effects on perception and its possible influence on motor tasks might have been overlooked or misinterpreted in previous studies. Our results provide a basis for the application of the Ebbinghaus figure in psychophysical and motor control studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 39%
Neuroscience 8 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,655,080
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,056
of 29,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,828
of 285,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 491 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 491 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.