Differential effects of stimulus context on perceived length: Implications for the horizontal-vertical illusion

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 59, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 1200-1213

  Armstrong, Laura ^b   Marks, Lawrence E ^a  

^a JOHN B PIERCE LABORATORY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RECEPTIVE FIELD; VISUAL ILLUSION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE; HUMANS; MALE; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SIZE PERCEPTION;

EID: 0031263939     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03214208     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. CAELLI, T. (1977). Is perceived length affected by interactions between orientation detectors? Vision Research, 17, 837-841.
2. COLLANI, G. VON (1985). The horizontal-vertical illusion in photographs of concrete scenes with and without depth information. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 61, 523-531.
3. FINGER, F. W., & SPELT, D. K. (1947). The illustration of the horizontal-vertical illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37, 243-250.
4. FOLEY, H. J., CROSS, D. V., & O'REILLY, J. A. (1990). Pervasiveness and magnitude of context effects: Evidence for the relativity of absolute magnitude estimation. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 551-558.
5. GIRGUS, J. S., & COREN, S. (1975). Depth cues and constancy scaling in the horizontal-vertical illusion: The bisection error. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 59-65.
6. HELSON, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
7. KÜNNAPAS, T. M. (1955). An analysis of the "vertical-horizontal illusion." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 134-140.
8. KÜNNAPAS, T. M. (1957). Vertical-horizontal illusion and surrounding field. Acta Psychologica, 13, 35-42.
9. KÜNNAPAS, T. M. (1959). The vertical-horizontal illusion in artificial visual fields. Journal of Psychology, 47, 41-48.
10. MARKS, L. E. (1988). Magnitude estimation and sensory matching. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 511-525.
11. MARKS, L. E. (1992a). The contingency of perceptual processing: Context modifies equal-loudness relations. Psychological Science, 3, 285-291.
12. MARKS, L. E. (1992b). The slippery context effect in psychophysics: Intensive, extensive and qualitative continua. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 187-198.
13. MARKS, L. E. (1993). Contextual processing of multidimensional and unidimensional auditory stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 227-249.
14. MARKS, L. E. (1994). "Recalibrating" the auditory system: The perception of loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 382-396.
15. MARKS, L. E. (1996). Recalibrating the perception of loudness. Interaural transfer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 473-480.
16. MARKS, L. E., & ARMSTRONG, L. (1996). Visual and haptic representations of space. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance XVI (pp. 263-287). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. MARKS, L. E., STEVENS, J. C., BARTOSHUK, L. M., GENT, J. F., RIFKIN, B., & STONE, V. K. (1988). Magnitude-matching: The measurement of taste and smell. Chemical Senses, 13, 63-87.
18. MARKS, L. E., & WARNER, E. (1991). Slippery context effect and critical bands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 17, 986-996.
19. MASIN, S. C., & VIDOTTO, G. (1983). A magnitude estimation study of the inverted-T illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 582-584.
20. POTTS, B. C. (1991) The horizontal-vertical illusion: A confluence of configural, contextual, and framing factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
21. POULTON, E. C. (1989). Bias in quantifying judgments. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
22. PRINZMETAL, W., & GETTLEMAN, L. (1993). Horizontal-vertical illusion: One eye is better than two. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 81-88.
23. RANKIN, K. M. (1993). Differential effects of context on intensity judgements of taste and smell: Perceptual change or judgemental bias? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.
24. RANKIN, K. M., & MARKS, L. E. (1991). Differential context effects in taste perception. Chemical Senses, 16, 617-629.
25. RANKIN, K. M., & MARKS, L. E. (1992). Effects of context on sweet and bitter tastes: Unrelated to sensitivity to PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil). Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 479-486.
26. SCHNEIDER, B., & PARKER, S. (1990). Does stimulus context affect loudness or only loudness judgments? Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 409-418.
27. STEVENS, S. S. (1958). Adaptation-level vs. the relativity of judgment. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 633-646.
28. TEDFORD, W. H., JR., & TUDOR, L. L. (1969). Tactual and visual illusions in the T-shaped figure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 199-201.
29. TEGHTSOONIAN, M. (1972). Apparent length as a function of tilt does not depend on orientation of the standard. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 191-197.
30. TUKEY, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31. VERRILLO, R. T., & IRVIN, G. (1979). Absolute magnitude estimation of line length as a function of orientation and contrast polarity. Sensory Processes, 3, 261-274.