Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ebbinghaus illusion in a fish (Xenotoca eiseni)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The tendency of fish to perceive the Ebbinghaus illusion was investigated. Redtail splitfins (Xenotoca eiseni, family Goodeidae) were trained to discriminate between two disks of different sizes. Then, fish were presented with two disks of the same size surrounded by disks of large or small size (inducers) arranged to produce the impression (to a human observer) of two disks of different sizes (in the Ebbinghaus illusion, a central disk surrounded by small inducers appears bigger than an identical one surrounded by large inducers). Fish chose the stimulus that, on the basis of a perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion, appeared deceptively larger or smaller, consistent with the condition of training. These results demonstrate that redtail splitfins tend to perceive this particular illusion. The results are discussed with reference to other related illusions that have been recently observed to be experienced by fish (such as the Navon effect), and with regard to their possible evolutionary implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5:679–685

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Dadda M (2014) Illusory patterns are fishy for fish, too. Front Neural Circuits 7:137

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbet I, Fagot J (2002) Perception of the corridor illusion by baboons (Papio papio). Behav Brain Res 132:111–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne K, Davis R (1983) Susceptibility of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to the Ponzo illusion. Bull Psychon Soc 21:476–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavoto KK, Cook RG (2001) Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 27(1):3–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cerella J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recognit 12(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiandetti C, Pecchia T, Patt F, Vallortigara G (2014) Visual hierarchical processing and lateralization of cognitive functions through domestic chicks’ eyes. PLoS One 9(1):e84435

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choplin JM, Medin DL (1999) Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Percept Psychophys 61:3–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook RG (1992) Dimensional organization and texture discrimination in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 18:354–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cook RG, Cavoto KK, Cavoto BR (1996) Mechanisms of multidimensional grouping, fusion, and search. Anim Learn Behav 24:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren S, Enns JT (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Percept Psychophys 54:579–588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danckert JA, Sharif N, Haffenden AM, Schiff KC, Goodale MA (2002) A temporal analysis of grasping in the Ebbinghaus illusion: planning versus online control. Exp Brain Res 144:275–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darmaillacq AS, Dickel L, Rahmani N, Shashar N (2011) Do reef fish, Variola louti and Scarus niger, perform amodal completion? Evidence from a field study. J Comp Psychol 125:273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Fockert J, Davidoff J, Fagot J, Parron C, Goldstein J (2007) More accurate size contrast judgments in the Ebbinghaus illusion by a remote culture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 3:738–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Grave DDJ, Biegstraaten M, Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (2005) Effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on grasping are not only due to misjudged size. Exp Brain Res 163:58–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deruelle C, Fagot J (1998) Visual search for global/local stimulus features in humans and baboons. Psychon Bull Rev 5:476–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus H (1902) Grundzüge der psychologie. Veit, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagot J, Deruelle C (1997) Processing of global and local visual information and hemispheric specialization in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:429–442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forkman B, Vallortigara G (1999) Minimization of modal contours: an essential cross species strategy in disambiguating relative depth. Anim Cogn 4:181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fremouw T, Herbranson WT, Shimp CP (1998) Priming of attention to local and global levels of visual analysis. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 24:278–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fremouw T, Herbranson WT, Shimp CP (2002) Dynamic shifts of pigeon local/global attention. Anim Cogn 5:233–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K (1996) Linear perspective and the Ponzo illusion: a comparison between rhesus monkeys and humans. Jpn Psychol Res 38:136–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K (1997) Perception of the Ponzo illusion by rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans: similarity and difference in the three primate species. Percept Psychophys 59:284–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K, Blough DS, Blough PM (1991) Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion. Anim Learn Behav 19:283–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K, Blough DS, Blough PM (1993) Effects of the inclination of context lines on perception of the Ponzo illusion by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 21:29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuss T, Bleckmann H, Schluessel V (2014) The brain creates illusions not just for us: sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum) can “see the magic” as well. Front Neural Circuits 20:8–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger G, Poggio T (1975) The Müller-Lyer figure and the fly. Science 190:479–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern M (1972) The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. J Exp Psychol 95:453–455

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Happé F (1996) Studying weak central coherence at low levels: children with autism do not succumb to visual illusions. A research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37:873–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horridge GA, Zang S-W, O’Carrol D (1992) Insect perception of illusory contours. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 337:59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldy Z, Kovacs I (2003) Visual context integration is not fully developed in 4-year-old children. Perception 32:657–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kimchi R (1992) Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. Psychol Bull 112:24–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchla RA, Wolf JM (1979) The order of visual processing: top-down, bottom-up, or middle-out. Percept Psychophys 25:225–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchla RA, Solis-Macias V, Hoffman J (1983) Attending to different levels of structure in a visual image. Percept Psychophys 33:1–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Hedges SB (1998) A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution. Nature 392:917–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascalzoni E, Regolin L (2011) Animal visual perception. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2:106–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro DW, Anderson NH (1971) Judgemental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. J Exp Psychol 89:147–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murayama T, Usui A, Takeda E, Kato K, Maejima K (2012) Relative size discrimination and perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Aquat Mamm 38:333–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura N, Fujita K, Ushitani T, Miyata H (2006) Perception of the standard and the reversed Müller-Lyer figures in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 120:252–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons perceive the Ebbinghaus–Titchener circles as an assimilation illusion. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 34(3):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2009) Further analysis of perception of reversed Müller-Lyer figures for pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Mot Skills 108:239–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2014) A reversed Ebbinghaus–Titchener illusion in bantams (Gallus gallus domesticus). Anim Cogn 17:471–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn Psychol 9:353–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama T (1960) Japanese studies on the so-called geometrical-optical illusions. Psychologia 3:7–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Parron C, Fagot J (2007) Comparison of grouping abilities in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio) with Ebbinghaus illusion. J Comp Psychol 121:405–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM, Vicinay J, Cavanagh P (2008) Processing of the Müller-Lyer illusion by a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Perception 37:765–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips WA, Chapman KL, Berry PD (2004) Size perception is less context sensitive in males. Perception 33:79–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz JR (1983) Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. J Exp Psychol Gen 112:516–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regolin L, Vallortigara G (1995) Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Percept Psychophys 57:971–976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Regolin L, Marconato F, Vallortigara G (2004) Hemispheric differences in the recognition of partly occluded objects by newly-hatched domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 7:162–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner A, Yamamoto K, Karten HJ (2005) Organization and evolution of the avian forebrain. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 287A:1080–1120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts B, Harris MG, Yates TA (2005) The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circle). Perception 34:847–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson LC, Egly R, Lamb MR, Kerth L (1993) Spatial attention and cuing to global and local levels of hierarchical structure. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:471–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa Salva O, Rugani R, Cavazzana A, Regolin L, Vallortigra G (2013) Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 16:895–906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa Salva O, Sovrano VA, Vallortigara G (2014) What can fish brains tell us about visual perception. Front Neural Circuits 8:119. doi:10.3389/fncir.2014.00119

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu T (2004) Comparative cognition and neuroscience: misconceptions about brain evolution. Jpn Psychol Res 46:246–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu T, Bowers AN (1999) Visual circuits of the avian telencephalon: evolutionary implications. Behav Brain Res 98:183–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sovrano VA, Bisazza A (2008) Recognition of partly occluded objects by fish. Anim Cogn 11:161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sovrano VA, Bisazza A (2009) Perception of subjective contours in fish. Perception 38:579–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steinke D, Salzburger W, Meyer A (2006) Novel relationships among ten fish model species revealed based on a phylogenomic analysis using ESTs. J Mol Evol 62:772–784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suganuma E, Pessoa VF, Monge-Fuentes V, Castro BM, Tavares MCH (2007) Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Brain Res 182:67–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland NS, Mackintosh NJ (1971) Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Timney B, Keil K (1996) Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues. Perception 25:1121–1128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Truppa V, Sovrano VA, Spinozzi G, Bisazza A (2010) Processing of visual hierarchical stimuli by fish (Xenoteca eiseni). Behav Brain Res 207(1):51–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tudusciuc O, Nieder A (2010) Comparison of length judgments and the Müller-Lyer illusion in monkeys and humans. Exp Brain Res 207:221–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ushitani T, Fujita K, Yamanaka R (2001) Do pigeons (Columba livia) perceive object unity? Anim Cogn 4:153–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (2004) Visual cognition and representation in birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Vertebrate comparative cognition: are primates superior to non-primates?. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 57–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (2006) The cognitive chicken: visual and spatial cognition in a non-mammalian brain. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (2009) Original knowledge and the two cultures. In: Carafoli E, Danieli GA, Longo GO (eds) The two cultures: shared problems. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–145

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G (2012) Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: a comparative and neural approach. Cogn Neuropsychol 29:213–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Chiandetti C, Rugani R, Sovrano VA, Regolin L (2010) Animal cognition. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 1:882–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade NJ (2005) Perception and illusions, historical perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade NJ (2010) Visual illusions. Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Warden CJ, Baar J (1929) The Müller-Lyer illusion in the ring dove, Turtur risorius. J Comp Psychol 9(4):275–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman EA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Van Hamme LJ, Biederman I (1993) Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli. Psychol Sci 4:336–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub DJ (1979) Ebbinghaus illusion: context, contour, and age influence the judged size of a circle admist circles. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5:353–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winslow CN (1933) Visual illusions in the chick. Arch Physiol 153:1–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyzisk K (2005) Experimente zur Form- und Größenwahrnehmung beim Goldfisch (Carassius auratus) unter Verwendung von Scheinkonturen und Größentäuschungen. Ph.D. thesis, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany

  • Wyzisk K, Neumeyer C (2007) Perception of illusory surfaces and contours in goldfish. Vis Neurosci 24:291–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamazaki Y, Otsuka Y, Kanazawa S, Yamaguchi MK (2010) Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in 5-to-8-month-old infants. Jpn Psychol Res 52(1):33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research grant from the Cassa di Risparmio of Trento e Rovereto. We wish to thank Matteo Kettmaier for his help with the experiments and Francesco Cerri for the maintenance of the aquaria.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The experiments reported here comply with the current Italian and European Community laws for the ethical treatment of animals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, C.so Bettini 31, 38068, Rovereto, Trento, Italy

    Valeria Anna Sovrano, Liliana Albertazzi & Orsola Rosa Salva

  2. Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Valeria Anna Sovrano

  3. Department of Humanities, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Liliana Albertazzi

Authors
  1. Valeria Anna Sovrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liliana Albertazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orsola Rosa Salva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeria Anna Sovrano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sovrano, V.A., Albertazzi, L. & Rosa Salva, O. The Ebbinghaus illusion in a fish (Xenotoca eiseni). Anim Cogn 18, 533–542 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0821-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0821-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation