The Ebbinghaus illusion modulates visual search for size-defined targets: Evidence for preattentive processing of apparent object size

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 475-495

  Busch, Astrid ^a   Müller, Hermann J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3843137054     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194895     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. AKS, D. J., & ENNS, J. T. (1996). Visual search for size is influenced by a background texture gradient. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1467-1481.
2. CAVE, K. R., & WOLFE, J. M. (1990). Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 225-271.
3. COOPER, L. A., & WEINTRAUB, D. J. (1970). Delbœuf-type circle illusion: Interactions among luminance, temporal characteristics, and inducing-figure variation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 75-82.
4. COREN, S. (1971). A size-contrast illusion without physical size differences. American Journal of Psychology, 84, 565-566.
5. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
6. EBBINGHAUS, H. (1913). Grundzüge der Psychologie. Leipzig: Veit.
7. EGETH, H. E., VIRZI, R. A., & GARBART, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 32-39.
8. FOUND, A. (1997). Visual search: Process and representation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of London.
9. FOUND, A., & MÜLLER, H. J. (2001). Efficient search for size targets on a background texture gradient: Is detection guided by discontinuities in the retinal-size gradient of items? Perception, 30, 21-48.
10. FRANZ, V. H., BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & FAHLE, M. (2003). Grasp effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion: Obstacle avoidance is not the explanation. Experimental Brain Research, 149, 470-477.
11. HAFFENDEN, A. M., SCHIFF, K. C., & GOODALE, M. A. (2001). The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion: Nonillusory effects of pictorial cues on grasp. Current Biology, 11, 177-181.
12. HODSOLL, J. P. (2002). The role of top-down processes in visual search for targets defined by linear and categorical separability. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham, U.K.
13. HUMPHREYS, G. W., KEULERS, N., & DONNELLY, N. (1994). Parallel visual coding in three dimensions. Perception, 23, 453-470.
14. JAEGER, T., & POLLACK, R. H. (1977). Effect of contrast level and temporal order on the Ebbinghaus circles illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 83-87.
15. KAPTEIN, N. A., THEEUWES, J., & VAN DER HEUDEN, A. H. C. (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1053-1069.
16. MASSARO, D. W., & ANDERSON, N. H. (1971). Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 147-151.
17. MÜLLER, H. J., & BUSCH, A. (2004). Visual search for size-defined target objects is modulated by the Ebbinghaus illusion: Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of the context objects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
18. MÜLLER, H. J., HELLER, D., & ZIEGLER, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1-17.
19. OLIVERS, C. N. L., WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1999). Visual marking of locations and feature maps: Evidence from withindimension defined conjunctions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 679-715.
20. PAPATHOMAS, T. V., FEHER, A., JULESZ, B., & ZEEVI, Y. (1996). Interactions of monocular and cyclopean components and the role of depth in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Perception, 25, 783-795.
21. PASHLER, H. (1987). Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 191-201.
22. SEGALOWITZ, S. J., & GRAVES, R. E. (1990). Suitability of the IBM XT, AT, and PS/2 keyboard, mouse, and game port as response devices in reaction time paradigms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 22, 283-289.
23. TREISMAN, A. (1988). Features and objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201-237.
24. TREISMAN, A. M., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
25. TREISMAN, A., & GORMICAN, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15-48.
26. TREISMAN, A., & SATO, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 459-478.
27. WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90-122.
28. WOLFE, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
29. WOLFE, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13-73). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.