Analiza podatności na złudzenia wzrokowe ze względu na zależność od pola i płeć

Hanna Bednarek; Agnieszka Lukas

doi:10.18778/1427-969X.19.02

Authors

Hanna Bednarek SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny, Wydział Psychologii, Instytut Podstaw Psychologii, Katedra Psychologii Poznawczej
Agnieszka Lukas Centrum Medyczne im. dr. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, Przychodnia Akademicka „PaLMA”, Poradnia Zdrowia Psychicznego

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1427-969X.19.02

Keywords:

shape and direction illusions, the Tilt-Constancy Theory, Zӧllner and Poggendorff, Rod and Frame illusion

Abstract

The answers for three questions were sought: 1) whether people who are susceptible to shape and direction illusions are also most prone to illusions of constancy tilt; 2) whether field-dependent persons compared to field-independent are more susceptible to visual illusions; and 3) whether women are more prone to visual illusions than men. 75 high school students (M = 18.5; SD = 0.5) and 31 psychology students (M = 20; SD = 0.5) participated in the study. The Embedded Figures Test was used as a measure of field dependence-independence, Witkin’s Rod and Frame Test as a measure of the rod and frame illusion, whereas susceptibility to illusions (Zӧllner, Poggendorff, Ponzo, Ebbinghaus, Miller-Lyer) was verified with the use of computer tasks. It was revealed that field dependence/independence did not diversify the susceptibility to illusions mentioned above. The study showed differences in the susceptibility to illusions depending on gender. Women appeared to be more susceptible to Rod and Frame, Poggendorff and Zӧllner illusions than men. Correlations between Rod and Frames illusion and other illusions were obtained for the tilt angle of the frame from the vertical by 15 degrees.

References

Aglioti S., DeSouza J. F. X., Goodale M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5 (6), 679–685.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(95)00133-3

Asch S. E., Witkin H. A. (1948a). Studies in space orientation: I. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 (3), 325–337.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057855

Asch S. E., Witkin H. A. (1948b). Studies in space orientation: II. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38 (4), 455–475.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054121

Bednarek H. (2011). Czy piloci ulegają złudzeniom percepcyjnym? Poznawcze uwarunkowania dezorientacji przestrzennej. Sopot: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Google Scholar

Bolouki S., Grosse R., Lee H., Ng A. (2007). Optical Illusion. Standford University, Stanford.
Google Scholar

Changizi M. A., Widders D. M. (2002). Latency correction explains the classical geometrical illusions. Perception, 31, 1241–1262.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p3412

Coren S., Girgus J. S., Erlichman H., Hakstian A. R. (1976). An empirical taxonomy of visual illusions, Perception and Psychophysics, 20 (2), 129–137.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199444

Gibson J. J. (1937). Adaptation, after-effect, and contrast in the perception of tilted lines: II. Simultaneous contrast and the areal restriction of the after-effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20 (6), 553–569.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057585

Gibson J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Google Scholar

Ginsburg A. P. (1984). Visual form perception based on biological filtering. W: I. Kohler, L. Spillmann, B. R. Wotten (red.), Sensory Experience, Adaptation and Perception (s. 53–72). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Google Scholar

Girgus J. S., Coren S. (1982). Assimilation and contrast illusions: Differences in plasticity. Perception and Psychophysics, 32 (6), 555–561.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204210

Gregory R. L. (1971). Oko i mózg. Psychologia widzenia. Przekł. S. Bogusławski. Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar

Gregory R. L. (1997). Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 352 (1358), 1121–1127.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0095

Gregory R. L. (2005). The Medawar Lecture 2001. Knowledge for vision: vision for knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 360 (1458), 1231–1251.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1662

Huteau M. (1983). Zależność – niezależność od pola i rozwój myślenia operacyjnego. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 2, 253–286.
Google Scholar

Isableu B., Gueguen M., Fourré B., Giraudet G., Amorim M.A. (2008). Assessment of visual field dependence: Comparison between the mechanical 3D rod-and-frame test developed by Oltman in 1968 with a 2D computer-based wersion. Journal of Vestibular Research, 18, 239–247.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-2008-185-601

Karmiloff-Smith A. (2007). Williams syndrome. Current Biology 17 (24): R1035–R1036.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.037

Kolańczyk A. (2011). Uwaga ekstensywna. Model ekstensywności vs. intensywności uwagi. Studia Psychologiczne, 49 (3), 7–27.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10167-010-0024-x

Kozhevnikov M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (3), 464–481.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464

Króliczak G. (1999). Dwa mózgi wzrokowe: percepcja a wzrokowa kontrola działania. Kognitywistyka i Media w Edukacji, 199–223.
Google Scholar

Króliczak G. (2002). Czy iluzje zwodzą jedynie „oko”, ale już nie rękę? http://www.kognitywistyka.net/artykuly/gk-czizjolnr.pdf [dostęp: 16.02.2015].
Google Scholar

Künnapas T. M. (1955). Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50 (3), 168–170.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044569

Ling J., Hamilton C., Heffernan T. M. (2006). Sex differences in the Poggendorff illusion: Identifying the locus of the effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 142–146.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.102.1.142-146

Lukas A. (2011). Zależność vs niezależność od pola a podatność na złudzenia wzrokowe i grawitacyjne. Niepublikowana praca magisterska, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź.
Google Scholar

Maheux M. J., Townsend J. C., Gresock C. J. (1960). Geometrical factors in illusions of direction. The American Journal of Psychology, 73 (4), 535–543.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1419941

Miller A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles, and educational goals. Educational Psychology, 11 (3–4), 217–238.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110302

Milner A. D., Goodale M. A. (2008). Mózg wzrokowy w działaniu. Przekł. G. Króliczak. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Google Scholar

Miyake A., Witzki A., Emerson M. (2001). Field dependence-independence from a working memory perspective: A Dual-task investigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory, 9, 445–457.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000029

Młyniec A. (2013). Style poznawcze, sprawność funkcji uwagowo-pamięciowych a odporność na złudzenia wzrokowe w grupie architektów. Niepublikowana praca magisterska, Szkoła Wyższa Psychologii Społecznej, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Ninio J. (2014). Geometrical illusions are not always where you think they are: A review of some classical and less classical illusions, and ways to describe them. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 856–870.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00856

Nosal C. S. (1990). Psychologiczne modele umysłu. Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar

Oyama T. (1977). Feature analysers, optical illusions, and figural aftereffects. Perception, 6 (4), 401–406.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p060401

Prinzmetal W., Beck D. (2001). The tilt-constancy theory of visual illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception And Performance, 27 (1), 206–217.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.206

Prinzmetal W., Shimamura A. P., Mikolinski M. (2001). The Ponzo Illusion and the perception of orientation. Perceptions and Psychophysics, 63 (1), 99–114.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200506

Porac C., Coren S., Girgus J. S., Verde M. (1979). Visualgeometric illusions: Uni-sexed phenomena. Perception, 8, 401–412.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/p080401

Robinson K. E. (2001). Intellectual biography of Herman Witkin and his theory of psychological differentiation. Doctoral dissertation, Carlos Albizu University.
Google Scholar

Rock I. (1984). Perception. New York: Scientific American Library.
Google Scholar

Smeets J. B., Brenner E. (2006). 10 years of illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32 (6), 1501–1504.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1501

Witkin H. A., Oltman P. K., Raskin E., Karp S. A. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t06471-000

Witkin H. A., Goodenough D. R. (1981). Cognitive style: essence and origins. New York: International Universitatis Press.
Google Scholar

Walter E. L. (2007). Visuospatial Contextual Processing: Illusions, Hidden Figures and Autistics Traits. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Google Scholar

Walter E., Dassonville P. (2008). Visuospatial contextual processing in the parietal cortex: An fMRI investigation of the induced Roelofs effect. Neuroimage, 42, 1686–1697.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.06.016

Zhang L.-F. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability? Validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37 (6), 1295–1311.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.015

Zimbardo P. G., Johnson R. L., McCann V. (2010). Psychologia. Kluczowe koncepcje. Struktura i funkcje świadomości. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Google Scholar

Zoccolotti P., Antonucci G., Goodenough D. R., Pizzamiglio L., Spinelli D. (1992). The role of frame size on vertical and horizontal observers in the rod-and-frame illusion, Acta Psychologica, 79 (2), 171–187.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90031-8