Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 895–906 | Cite as

Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus)

  • O. Rosa SalvaEmail author
  • R. Rugani
  • A. Cavazzana
  • L. Regolin
  • G. Vallortigara
Original Paper

Abstract

In the Ebbinghaus size illusion, a central circle surrounded by small circles (inducers) appears bigger than an identical one surrounded by large inducers. Previous studies have failed to demonstrate sensitivity to this illusion in pigeons and baboons, leading to the conclusion that avian species (possibly also nonhuman primates) might lack the neural substrate necessary to perceive the Ebbinghaus illusion in a human-like fashion. Such a substrate may have been only recently evolved in the primate lineage. Here, we show that this illusion is perceived by 4-day-old domestic chicks. During rearing, chicks learnt, according to an observational-learning paradigm, to find food in proximity either of a big or of a small circle. Subjects were then tested with Ebbinghaus stimuli: two identical circles, one surrounded by larger and the other by smaller inducers. The percentage of approaches to the perceptually bigger target in animals reinforced on the bigger circle (and vice versa for the other group) was computed. Over four experiments, we demonstrated that chicks are reliably affected by the illusory display. Subjects reinforced on the small target choose the configuration with big inducers, in which the central target appears perceptually smaller; the opposite is true for subjects reinforced on the big target. This result has important implications for the evolutionary history of the neural substrate involved in the perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion.

Keywords

Ebbinghaus illusion Titchener circles Domestic chicks Gallus gallus Comparative study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

G.V was funded by an ERC Advanced Grant (PREMESOR ERC-2011-ADG_20110406). This study was also supported by the research grant from the University of Padova to R.R. (‘Progetto Giovani’, Bando 2010, Università degli Studi di Padova, prot.: GRIC101142).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

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

References

  1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5:679–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbet I, Fagot J (2002) Perception of the corridor illusion by baboons (Papio papio). Behav Brain Res 132:111–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayne K, Davis R (1983) Susceptibility of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to the Ponzo illusion. Bull Psychonomic Soc 21:476–478Google Scholar
  4. Benowitz LI, Karten HJ (1976) Organization of the tectofugal visual pathway in the pigeon: a retrograde transport study. J Comp Neurol 167:503–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bessette BB, Hodos W (1989) Intensity, color, and pattern discrimination deficits after lesions of the core and belt regions of the ectostriatum. Vis Neurosci 2:27–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bondarko VM, Semenov LA (2004) Size estimates in Ebbinghaus illusion in adults and children of different age. Hum Physiol 30(1):24–30Google Scholar
  7. Cavoto KK, Cook RG (2001) Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 27(1):3–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerella J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of pictures. Pattern Recog 12(1):1–6Google Scholar
  9. Choplin JM, Medin DL (1999) Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Percept Psychophys 61:3–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clara E, Regolin L, Zanforlin M, Vallortigara G (2006) Domestic chicks perceive stereokinetic illusions. Perception 35(7):983–992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen DH (1967) The hyperstriatal region of the avian forebrain: a lesion study of possible functions, including its role in cardiac and respiratory conditioning. J Comp Neurol 131:559–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook RG (1992) Dimensional organization and texture discrimination in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:354–363Google Scholar
  13. Cook RG, Cavoto KK, Cavoto BR (1996) Mechanisms of multidimensional grouping, fusion, and search. Anim Learn Behav 24:150–167Google Scholar
  14. Coren S, Enns JT (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Percept Psychophys 54:579–588PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Coren S, Porac C, Aks DJ, Morikawa K (1988) A method to assess the relative contribution of lateral inhibition to the magnitude of visual-geometric illusions. Percept Psychophys 43:551–558PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 144:275–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 3:738–742Google Scholar
  18. 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 163:58–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Deruelle C, Fagot J (1998) Visual search for global/local stimulus features in humans and baboons. Psychonomic Bull Rev 5:476–481Google Scholar
  20. Doherty MJ, Tsuji H, Phillips WA (2008) The context sensitivity of visual size perception varies across cultures. Perception 37:1426–1433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Doherty MJ, Campbell NM, Tsuji H, Phillips WA (2010) The Ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults but not young children. Dev Sci 13:714–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dominguez KE (1954) A study of visual illusions in the monkey. J Genet Psychol 85:105–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Duemmler T, Franz VH, Jovanovic B, Schwarzer G (2008) Effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on children’s perception and grasping. Exp Brain Res 186:249–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ebbinghaus H (1902) Grundzüge der psychologie. Veit & comp, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 23:429–442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fontanari L, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2011) Object individuation in three-day old chicks: use of property and spatiotemporal information. Dev Sci 14:1235–1244PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fredes F, Tapia S, Letelier JC, Marín G, Mpodozis J (2010) Topographic arrangement of the rotundo-entopallial projection in the pigeon (Columba livia). J Comp Neurol 518:4342–4361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fremouw T, Herbranson WT, Shimp CP (1998) Priming of attention to local and global levels of visual analysis. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 24:278–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fujita K (1996) Linear perspective and the Ponzo illusion: a comparison between rhesus monkeys and humans. Jpn Psychol Res 38:136–145Google Scholar
  30. Fujita K (1997) Perception of the Ponzo illusion by rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans: similarity and difference in the three primate species. Percept Psychophys 59:284–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Fujita K (2001) Perceptual completion in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Psychophys 63:115–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fujita K (2006) Seeing what is not there: illusion, completion, and spatio-temporal boundary formation in comparative perspective. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 29–52Google Scholar
  33. Fujita K, Blough DS, Blough PM (1991) Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion. Anim Learn Behav 19:283–293Google Scholar
  34. 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 21:29–34Google Scholar
  35. Ganz L (1966) Mechanism of the figural aftereffects. Psychol Rev 73:128–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern M (1972) The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. J Exp Psychol 95:453–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Goodale MA (1983) Visually guided pecking in the pigeon (Columba livia). Brain Behav Evol 22:22–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanisch C, Konczak J, Dohle C (2001) The effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping behaviour of children. Exp Brain Res 137:237–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 37:873–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Harris AV (1968) Perception of the horizontal-vertical illusion in stumptail monkeys. Radford Rev 22:61–72Google Scholar
  42. Hellmann B, Güntürkün O (1999) Visual-field-specific heterogeneity within the tecto-rotundal projection of the pigeon. Eur J Neurosci 11:2635–2650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hodos W, Bonbright JC (1974) Intensity difference thresholds in pigeons after lesions of the tectofugal and thalamofugal visual pathways. J Comp Physiol Psychol 87:1013–1031PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hodos W, Karten HJ (1966) Brightness and pattern discrimination deficits in the pigeon after lesions of nucleus rotundus. Exp Brain Res 2:151–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hodos W, Karten HJ (1970) Visual intensity and pattern discrimination deficits after lesions of ectostriatum in pigeons. J Comp Neurol 140:53–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hodos W, Karten HJ (1974) Visual intensity and pattern discrimination deficits after lesions of the optic lobe in pigeons. Brain Behav Evol 9:165–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hodos W, Macko KA, Bessette BB (1984) Near-field acuity changes after visual system lesions in pigeons II. Telencephalon. Behav Brain Res 13:15–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hodos W, Weiss SR, Bessette BB (1986) Size-threshold changes after lesions of the visual telencephalon in pigeons. Behav Brain Res 21:203–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hodos W, Weiss SR, Bessette BB (1988) Intensity difference thresholds after lesions of ectostriatum in pigeons. Behav Brain Res 30:43–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Holmes G (1918) Disturbances of vision by cerebral lesions. Br J Ophthal 2:353–384Google Scholar
  51. Holmes G (1944) The organization of the visual cortex in man. Proc Roy Soc B 132:348–361Google Scholar
  52. Horton J, Hoyt W (1991) The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. Arch Ophthalmol 109:816–824PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Jarvis ED, Güntürkün O, Bruce L, Csillag A, Karten H, Kuenzel W, Medina L, Paxinos G, Perkel DJ, Shimizu T, Striedter G, Wild JM, Ball GF, Dugas-Ford J, Durand SE, Hough GE, Husband S, Kubikova L, Lee DW, Mello CV, Powers A, Siang C, Smulders TV, Wada K, White SA, Yamamoto K, Yu J, Reiner A, Butler AB (2005) Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate evolution. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:151–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaldy Z, Kovacs I (2003) Visual context integration is not fully developed in 4-year-old children. Perception 32:657–666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kertzman C, Hodos W (1988) Size-difference thresholds after lesions of thalamic visual nuclei in pigeons. Vis Neurosci 1:83–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kimchi R (1992) Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. Psychol Bull 112:24–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lamb MR, Robertson LC (1988) The processing of hierarchical stimuli: effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty and stimulus identity. Percept Psychophys 44:172–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lea SEG, Slater AM, Ryan CME (1996) Perception of object unity in chicks: a comparison with the human infant. Infant Behav Dev 19:501–504Google Scholar
  59. Macchi Cassia V, Simion F, Milani I, Umiltà C (2002) Dominance of global visual properties at birth. J Exp Psychol Gen 131(3):398–411Google Scholar
  60. Macko KA, Hodos W (1984) Near-field acuity after visual system lesions in pigeons I. Thalamus. Behav Brain Res 13:1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Martinoya C, Rivaud S, Bloch S (1984) Comparing frontal and lateral viewing in pigeons II. Velocity thresholds for movement discrimination. Behav Brain Res 8:375–385Google Scholar
  62. Mascalzoni E, Regolin L (2011) Animal visual perception. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2:106–116Google Scholar
  63. Mascalzoni E, Osorio D, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2012) Symmetry perception by poultry chicks and its implications for three-dimensional objects recognition. Proc R Soc B 279(1730):841–846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Massaro DW, Anderson NH (1971) Judgemental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. J Exp Psychol 89:147–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Murray SO, Boyaci H, Kersten D (2006) The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 9:429–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 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 120:252–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons perceive the Ebbinghaus-Titchener circles as an assimilation illusion. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34(3):375–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2009) Further analysis of perception of reversed Müller-Lyer figures for pigeons (Columba livia). Percept Mot Skills 108:239–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Navon D (1977) Forest before trees—precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognit Psychol 9:353–383Google Scholar
  70. Nicolas S (1995) Joseph Delboeuf on visual illusions: a historical sketch. Am J Psychol 108:563–574Google Scholar
  71. Oyama T (1960) Japanese studies on the so-called geometrical-optical illusions. Psychologia 3:7–20Google Scholar
  72. Parron C, Fagot J (2007) Comparison of grouping abilities in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio) with Ebbinghaus illusion. J Comp Psychol 121:405–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Pepperberg IM, Vicinay J, Cavanagh P (2008) Processing of the Müller-Lyer illusion by a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Perception 37:765–781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Regolin L, Vallortigara G (1995) Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks. Percept Psychophys 57:971–976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Regolin L, Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2000) Visual perception of biological motion in newly hatched chicks as revealed by an imprinting procedure. Anim Cogn 3:53–60Google Scholar
  76. Regolin L, Garzotto B, Rugani R, Pagni P, Vallortigara G (2005a) Working memory in the chick: parallel and lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object- and position-specific information. Behav Brain Res 157:1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Regolin L, Rugani R, Pagni P, Vallortigara G (2005b) Delayed search for social and nonsocial goals by young domestic chicks Gallus gallus domesticus. Anim Behav 70:855–864Google Scholar
  78. Regolin L, Rugani R, Stancher G, Vallortigara G (2011) Spontaneous discrimination of possible and impossible objects by newly hatched chicks. Biol Lett 7:654–657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Reiner A (2005) A new avian brain nomenclature: why, how and what. Brain Res Bull 66:317–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Reiner A, Yamamoto K, Karten HJ (2005) Organization and evolution of the avian forebrain. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell EvolBiol 287A:1080–1120Google Scholar
  81. Roberts B, Harris MG, Yates TA (2005) The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circle). Perception 34:847–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Rosa Salva O, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010) Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: evidence for inborn domain-specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli. Dev Sci 13(4):565–577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosa Salva O, Farroni T, Regolin L, Vallortigara G, Johnson MH (2011) The evolution of social orienting: evidence from chicks (Gallus gallus) and human newborns. PLoS One 6(4):e18802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Rosa Salva O, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2012) Inversion of contrast polarity abolishes spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli in newborn chicks. Behav Brain Res 228:113–143Google Scholar
  85. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2008) Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34:388–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2009) Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc Royal Soc B 276:2451–2460Google Scholar
  87. Rugani R, Kelly MD, Szelest I, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010a) It is only humans that count from left to righ? Biol Lett 6:290–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010b) Imprinted numbers: newborn chicks’ sensitivity to number versus continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Dev Sci 13:790–797PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2011) Summation of large numerousness by newborn chicks. Front Psychol 2:179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Schmid KL, Wildsoet CF (1998) Assessment of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in the chick using an optokinetic nystagmus paradigm. Vision Res 38:2629–2634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Schwarzkopf D, Song C, Rees G (2011) The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nat Neurosci 14:28–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Shimizu T (2004) Comparative cognition and neuroscience: misconceptions about brain evolution. Jpn Psychol Res 46:246–254Google Scholar
  93. Shimizu T, Bowers AN (1999) Visual circuits of the avian telencephalon: evolutionary implications. Behav Brain Res 98:183–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Shimizu T, Patton TB, Husband SA (2010) Avian visual behavior and the organization of the telencephalon. Brain Behav Evolution 75:204–217Google Scholar
  95. Song C, Schwarzkopf DS, Rees G (2011) Interocular induction of illusory size perception. BMC Neurosci 12:27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Spinozzi G, De Lillo C, Truppa V (2003) Global and local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 117(1):15–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 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 182:67–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Timney B, Keil K (1996) Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues. Perception 25:1121–1128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Truppa V, Sovrano VA, Spinozzi G, Bisazza A (2010) Processing of visual hierarchical stimuli by fish (Xenoteca eiseni). Behav Brain Res 207(1):51–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Tudusciuc O, Nieder A (2010) Comparison of length judgments and the Müller-Lyer illusion in monkeys and humans. Exp Brain Res 207:221–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Ushitani T, Fujita K, Yamanaka R (2001) Do pigeons (Columba livia) perceive object unity? Anim Cogn 4:153–161Google Scholar
  102. 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 57–94Google Scholar
  103. 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 41–58Google Scholar
  104. Vallortigara G (2012) Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: a comparative and neural approach. Cogn Neuropsychol 29(1–2):231–236Google Scholar
  105. Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2006) Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Curr Biol 16:279–280Google Scholar
  106. Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Marconato F (2005) Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol 3:1312–1316Google Scholar
  107. Vallortigara G, Snyder A, Kaplan G, Bateson P, Clayton NS, Rogers LJ (2008) Are animals autistic savants? PLoS Biol 6:208–214Google Scholar
  108. Vallortigara G, Chiandetti C, Rugani R, Sovrano VA, Regolin L (2010) Animal cognition. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cogn Sci 1:882–893Google Scholar
  109. Wade NJ (2005) Perception and illusions, historical perspectives. Springer, DordrechGoogle Scholar
  110. Wade NJ (2010) Visual illusions. Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. 1–2Google Scholar
  111. Wang YC, Jiang C, Frost BJ (1993) Visual processing in pigeon nucleus rotundus: luminance, color, motion, and looming subdivisions. Visual Neurosci 10:21–30Google Scholar
  112. Warden CJ, Baar J (1929) The Müller-Lyer illusion in the ring dove, Turtur risorius. J Comp Psychol 9(4):275–292Google Scholar
  113. Wasserman EA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Van Hamme LJ, Biederman I (1993) Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli. Psychol Sci 4:336–341Google Scholar
  114. Watanabe S (2001) Discrimination of cartoons and photographs in pigeons: effects of scrambling of elements. Behav Proc 53:3–9Google Scholar
  115. Watanabe S, Nakamura N, Fujita K (2011) Pigeons perceive a reversed Zöllner illusion. Cognition 119:137–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Weintraub DJ (1979) Ebbinghaus illusion: context, contour, and age influence the judged size of a circle admist circles. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5:353–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Weintraub DJ, Schneck MK (1986) Fragments of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: contour/context explorations of misjudged circle size. Percept Psychopys 40:147–158Google Scholar
  118. Winslow CN (1933) Visual illusions in the chick. Arch Physiol 153:1–83Google Scholar
  119. 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):33–40Google Scholar
  120. Zanforlin M (1981) Visual perception of complex forms (anomalous surfaces) in chicks. Ital J Psychol 1:1–16Google Scholar
  121. Zanuttini L (1996) Figural and semantic factors in change in the Ebbinghaus illusion across four age groups of children. Percep Motor Skills 82:15–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Rosa Salva
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Rugani
    • 2
  • A. Cavazzana
    • 2
  • L. Regolin
    • 2
  • G. Vallortigara
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Mind/Brain SciencesUniversity of TrentoRovereto (TN)Italy
  2. 2.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations