Advertisement

Effects of Five-Day “Dry” Immersion on the Strength of the Ponzo and the Müller-Lyer Illusions

  • I. S. Sosnina
  • V. A. Lyakhovetskii
  • K. A. Zelenskiy
  • V. Yu. KarpinskayaEmail author
  • E. S. Tomilovskaya
Article
  • 1 Downloads

The parameters of the verbal and sensorimotor responses to the Müller-Lyer and Ponzo illusions were determined in two groups spending five days in support unloading produced by “dry” immersion. Subjects in the “immersion” (IM) group were not exposed to any treatment other than immersion. Subjects of the “immersion + weight loading” (IM + L) group underwent weight loading using a Penguin axial loading costume for 4 h each day. Differences in the verbal and sensorimotor responses were seen in the two groups, along with differences in assessments of the two illusions. Verbal reports indicated that the strength of the Ponzo and Müller-Lyer illusions decreased linearly as the experiment progressed; sensorimotor responses indicated that being in the Penguin suit led to increases in illusion strength; the strength of the Müller-Lyer illusion increased after immersion fi nished. It is suggested that the main factor affecting illusion strength is gravitational unloading, which decreases the level of activation of the left hemisphere, leading to use of a metric representation system mainly associated with activity in the right hemisphere.

Keywords

Ponzo illusion Müller-Lyer illusion “dry” immersion gravitation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akhutina, T. V., Neurolinguistic Analysis of Vocabulary, Semantics, and Pragmatics, YaSK, Moscow (2014).Google Scholar
  2. Allakhverdov, V. M., “The cognitive psychology of consciousness,” Vestn. St. Peters. Gos. Univ. Ser. 6, 2, 50–59 (2012).Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, V., Schwarzkopf, D. S., Gilaie-Dotan, S., and Rees, G., “Perceptual similarity and the neural correlates of geometrical illusions in human brain structure,” Sci. Rep., 7, 39968 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barer, A. S., Kozlovskaya, I. B., and Tikhomirov, E. P., “Effects of the ‘Penguin’ prophylactic loading suit on metabolism in humans during movements,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 32, No. 4, 4–8 (1998).Google Scholar
  5. Brislin, R. W., “The Ponzo illusion: additional cues, age, orientation, and culture,” J. Cross-Cult. Psychol., 5, 139 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cañal-Bruland, R., Voorwald, F., Wielaard, K., and van der Kamp, J., “Dissociations between vision for perception and vision for action depend on the relative availability of egocentric and allocentric information,” Atten. Percept. Psychophys., 75, 1206–1214 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cebolla, A., Petieau, M., Dan, B., et al., “Cerebellar contribution to visuo-attentional alpha rhythm: insights from weightlessness,” Sci. Rep., 6, 37824 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheron, G., Leroy, A., Palmero-Soler, E., et al., “Gravity influences top-down signals in visual processing,” PLoS One, 9, No. 1, e82371 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clement, G. and Eckardt, J., “Influence of the gravitational vertical on geometric visual illusions,” Acta Astronautica, 56, 911–917 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coren, S., Girgus, J. S., Erlichman, H., and Hakstian, A. R., “An empirical taxonomy of visual illusions,” Percept. Psychophys., 20, No. 2, 129–137 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deręgowski, J. B., “Illusions within an illusion,” Perception, 44, No. 12, 1416–21 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamble, C. M. and Song, J. H., “Dynamic modulation of illusory and physical target size on separate and coordinated eye and hand movements,” J. Vis., 17, No. 3, 23 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ganel, T., Tanzer, M., and Goodale, M. A., “A double dissociation between action and perception in the context of visual illusions: opposite effects of real and illusory size,” Psychol. Sci., 19, No. 3, 221–225 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giese, M. A. and Rizzolatti, G., “Neural and computational mechanisms of action processing: interaction between visual and motor representations,” Neuron, 88, No. 1, 167–180 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goncharov, I. I., The Typology of Bioelectrical Activity of the Human Brain in the States of Restful and Active Waking: Dissert. Master’s Degree in Biol. Sci., Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (1990).Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, R. L., Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Princeton Univ. Press (2015).Google Scholar
  17. Hesse, C., Franz, V. H., and Schenk, T., “Pointing and antipointing in Müller-Lyer figures: Why illusion effects need to be scaled,” J. Exp. Psychol., Hu. Percept. Perform., 42, No. 1, 90–102 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karpinskaia, V. and Lyakhovetskii, V., “The sensorimotor evaluation of perceptual illusions,” Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci., 86, 323–327 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karpinskaya, V. and Lyakhovetskii, V., “Differences in sensorimotor assessment of the Ponzo and Müller-Lyer illusions,” Psikhol. Issled., 7, No. 38, 3 (2014).Google Scholar
  20. Karpinskaya, V. Yu. and Lyakhovetskii, V. A., “The role of interhemisphere asymmetry in the sensorimotor assessment of perceptual illusions,” Eksperim. Psikhol., 1, 35–44 (2012).Google Scholar
  21. Karpinskaya, V. Yu., Why Do We Not See What We See? Samra Univ. Press, Samara (2015).Google Scholar
  22. Kausler, D. H., Experimental Psychology, Cognition, and Human Aging, Springer Science + Business Media, New York (2012).Google Scholar
  23. Kirenskaya, A. V., Tomilovskaya, E. S., Novototskii-Vlasov, V. Yu., and Kozlovskaya, I. B., “Effects of modeling of microgravitation on the characteristics of slow saccadic potentials,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 32, No. 2, 10–19 (2006).Google Scholar
  24. Kornilova, L. N. and Tarasov, I. K., “Orientational illusions in weightlessness,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 30, No. 3, 17–23 (1996).Google Scholar
  25. Kornilova, L. N., Glukhikh, D. O., Naumov, I. A., et al., “The effects of optokinetic stimulation on visual-manual tracking in conditions of support and proprioceptive deprivation,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 42, No. 5, 49–62 (2016).Google Scholar
  26. Kornilova, L. N., Naumov, I. A., and Glukhikh, D. O., “Visual-manual tracking in conditions of five days of immersion,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 45, No. 6, 8–12 (2011).Google Scholar
  27. Lipshits, M. and McIntyre, J., “Gravity affects the preferred vertical and horizontal in visual perception of orientation,” NeuroReport, 10, 1085–1089 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mechtcheriakov, S., Berger, M., Molokanova, E., et al., “Slowing of human arm movements during weightlessness: The role of vision,” Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 87, No. 6, 576 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Men’shikova, G. Ya., “The classification of visual illusions,” Psikhol. Issled., 5, No. 25, 1 (2012).Google Scholar
  30. Parks, T. E., “On depth processing in the production of the Ponzo illusion: two problems and a solution,” Perception, 42, No. 2, 242–244 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pylyshyn, Z., “Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception,” Behav. Brain Sci., 22, No. 3, 341–365 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robinson, J. O., The Psychology of Visual Illusion, Courier Corp., New York (2013).Google Scholar
  33. Sangals, J., Heuer, H., Manzey, D., and Lorenz, B., “Changed visuomotor transformations during and after prolonged microgravity,” Exp. Brain Res., 129, No. 3, 378–90 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Searleman, A., Porac, C., Alvin, J., and Peaslee, K., “Manipulating the strength of the Ponzo and horizontal-vertical illusions through extraction of local cue information,” Am. J. Psychol., 122, No. 3, 383–394 (2009).Google Scholar
  35. Smirnova, T. A. and Il’in, E. A., “Bioethical assessment of programs of medical-biological studies involving humans in space medicine,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 47, No. 3, 56–62 (2013).Google Scholar
  36. Tomilovskaya, E. S., “Experiments using five days of immersion: tasks, volume, and structure of studies, features of methodological approaches,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 45, No. 6, 3–7 (2011).Google Scholar
  37. Van Obmbergen, A., Demertzi, A., Tomilovskaya, E., et al., “The effect of spaceflight and microgravity on the human brain,” J. Neurol., 264, Suppl. 1, 18–22, (2017), doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-017-8427-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Villard, E., Garcia-Moreno, F. T., Peter, N., and Clement, G., “Gravity affects the preferred vertical and horizontal in visual perception of orientation,” NeuroReport, 16, No. 12, 1395–1398 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. S. Sosnina
    • 1
  • V. A. Lyakhovetskii
    • 2
  • K. A. Zelenskiy
    • 1
  • V. Yu. Karpinskaya
    • 3
    Email author
  • E. S. Tomilovskaya
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Medical and Biological ProblemsRussian Academy of Sciences (IMBP RAS)MoscowRussia
  2. 2.Movement Physiology Laboratory, Pavlov Institute of PhysiologyRussian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Department of General Psychology, Faculty of PsychologySt. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations