Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 435–448 | Cite as

Visual perception in domestic dogs: susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus–Titchener and Delboeuf illusions

  • Sarah-Elizabeth ByosiereEmail author
  • Lynna C. Feng
  • Jessica K. Woodhead
  • Nicholas J. Rutter
  • Philippe A. Chouinard
  • Tiffani J. Howell
  • Pauleen C. Bennett
Original Paper

Abstract

Susceptibility to geometrical visual illusions has been tested in a number of non-human animal species, providing important information about how these species perceive their environment. Considering their active role in human lives, visual illusion susceptibility was tested in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Using a two-choice simultaneous discrimination paradigm, eight dogs were trained to indicate which of two presented circles appeared largest. These circles were then embedded in three different illusory displays; a classical display of the Ebbinghaus–Titchener illusion; an illusory contour version of the Ebbinghaus–Titchener illusion; and the classical display of the Delboeuf illusion. Significant results were observed in both the classical and illusory contour versions of the Ebbinghaus–Titchener illusion, but not the Delboeuf illusion. However, this susceptibility was reversed from what is typically seen in humans and most mammals. Dogs consistently indicated that the target circle typically appearing larger in humans appeared smaller to them, and that the target circle typically appearing smaller in humans, appeared larger to them. We speculate that these results are best explained by assimilation theory rather than other visual cognitive theories explaining susceptibility to this illusion in humans. In this context, we argue that our findings appear to reflect higher-order conceptual processing in dogs that cannot be explained by accounts restricted to low-level mechanisms of early visual processing.

Keywords

Ebbinghaus–Titchener Delboeuf Domestic dog Geometrical illusion Perception Illusory contours 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Joyce Wuister and Diana Rayment for their help during the data collection process and Eva Worden for her help during the training process. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their comprehensive and insightful reviews, as well as Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini, Angelo Bisazza, and Christian Agrillo, for sharing the results of Miletto Petrazzini et al. (2016) prior to publication.

Funding

This research was carried out with the support of La Trobe University Postgraduate Research Scholarships and La Trobe University Full Fee Research Scholarships.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in the following experiments were in accordance with the ethical standards of La Trobe University Animal Ethics Committee (Approval Number: AEC15-18).

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 112796 kb)

10071_2016_1067_MOESM2_ESM.docx (5.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 5349 kb)

References

  1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5:679–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bensky MK, Gosling SD, Sinn DL (2013) The world from a dog’s point of view: a review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Adv Study Anim Behav 45:209–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caramazza A, Mahon BZ (2006) The organisation of conceptual knowledge in the brain: the future’s past and some future directions. Cogn Neuropsy 23:13–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choplin JM, Medin DL (1999) Similarity of the perimeters in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Percept Psychophys 61:3–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chouinard PA, Noulty WA, Sperandio I, Landry O (2013) Global processing during the Müller-Lyer illusion is distinctively affected by the degree of autistic traits in the typical population. Exp Brain Res 230:219–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chouinard PA, Unwin KL, Landry O, Sperandio I (2016) Susceptibility to optical illusions varies as a function of the autism-spectrum quotient but not in ways predicted by local–global biases. J Autism Dev Disord 46:2224–2239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobb M, Branson N, McGreevy P, Lill A, Bennett P (2015) The advent of canine performance science: offering a sustainable future for working dogs. Behav Process 110:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coren S, Enns JT (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Percept Psychophys 54:579–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Coren S, Miller J (1974) Size contrast as a function of figural similarity. Percept Psychophys 16:355–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 33:738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. de Grave DD, Biegstraaten M, Smeets JB, Brenner E (2005) Effects of the Ebbinghaus figure on grasping are not only due to misjudged size. Exp Brain Res 163:58–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Duke-Elder S (1958) System of ophthalmology vol. 1. The eye in evolution. Henry Kimpton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagleman DM (2001) Visual illusions and neurobiology. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:920–926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Feng LC, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC (2016) Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions? Psychon Bull Rev. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1133-3 Google Scholar
  15. Gellermann LW (1933) Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. Pedagog Semin J Genet Psychol 42(1):206–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Girgus JS, Coren S, Agdern M (1972) The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboeuf illusions. J Exp Psychol 95:453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gold JM (2014) Information processing correlates of a size-contrast illusion. Front Psychol 5:142PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory RL (1980) Perceptions as hypotheses. Philos Trans R Soc B 290:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory RL (2015) Eye and brain: the psychology of seeing. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  20. Haber RN, Hershenson M (1973) The psychology of visual perception. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psychol 113:173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. J Physiol 160:106CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Huber L, Racca A, Scaf B, Virányi Z, Range F (2013) Discrimination of familiar human faces in dogs (Canis familiaris). Learn Motiv 44:258–269CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs GH (1983) Colour vision in animals. Endeavour 7:137–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanizsa G, Renzi P, Conte S, Compostela C, Guerani L (1993) Amodal completion in mouse vision. Perception 22:713–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelley LA, Kelley JL (2014) Animal visual illusion and confusion: the importance of a perceptual perspective. Behav Ecol 25:450–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kemp C, Jacobson S (1992) Rhodopsin levels in the central retinas of normal miniature poodles and those with progressive rod-cone degeneration. Exp Eye Res 54:947–956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. King DL (1988) Assimilation is due to one perceived whole and contrast is due to two perceived wholes. New Ideas Psychol 6:277–288. doi: 10.1016/0732-118X(88)90039-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koffka K (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazareva OF, Wasserman EA, Young ME (2005) Transposition in pigeons: reassessing spence (1937) with multiple discrimination training. Anim Learn Behav 33:22–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lazareva OF, Miner M, Wasserman EA, Young ME (2008) Multiple-pair training enhances transposition in pigeons. Learn Behav 36:174–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lazareva OF, Young ME, Wasserman EA (2014) A three-component model of relational responding in the transposition paradigm. J Exp Psych Anim Learn Cognit 40:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Livingstone M, Hubel D (1988) Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science 240:740–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Massaro DW, Anderson NH (1971) Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. J Exp Psychol 89:147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McGreevy P, Grassi TD, Harman AM (2003) A strong correlation exists between the distribution of retinal ganglion cells and nose length in the dog. Brain Behav Evol 63:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miletto Petrazzini ME, Bisazza A, Agrillo C (2016) Do domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) perceive the Delboeuf illusion? Anim Cogn. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1066-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller PE, Murphy CJ (1995) Vision in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 207:1623–1634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mongillo P, Pitteri E, Sambugaro P, Carnier P, Marinelli L (2016) Global bias reliability in dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cognit. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1044-8 Google Scholar
  39. 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 38:333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2011) Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cognit 14:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons perceive the Ebbinghaus–Titchener circles as an assimilation illusion. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 34:375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2014) A reversed Ebbinghaus–Titchener illusion in bantams (Gallus gallus domesticus). Anim Cognit 17:471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognit Psychol 9:353–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neitz J, Geist T, Jacobs GH (1989) Color vision in the dog. Vis Neurosci 3:119–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ninio J (1998) La science des illusions. Odile Jacob, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Parrish AE, Beran MJ (2014) When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size. Anim Cognit 17:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parrish AE, Brosnan SF, Beran MJ (2015) Do you see what I see? A comparative investigation of the Delboeuf illusion in humans (Homo sapiens), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cognit 41:395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parron C, Fagot J (2007) Comparison of grouping abilities in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio) with the Ebbinghaus illusion. J Comp Psychol 121:405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Peichlcu L (1992) Topography of ganglion cells in the dog and wolf retina. J Comp Neurol 324:603–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pitteri E, Mongillo P, Carnier P, Marinelli L (2014) Hierarchical stimulus processing by dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cognit 17:869–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pressey AW, Di Lollo V, Tait RW (1977) Effects of gap size between shaft and fins and of angle of fins on the Müller–Lyer illusion. Perception 6:435–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pylyshyn Z (1999) Is vision continuous with cognition?: the case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behav Brain Sci 22:341–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Racca A, Amadei E, Ligout S, Guo K, Meints K, Mills D (2010) Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cognit 13:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Range F, Aust U, Steurer M, Huber L (2008) Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs. Anim Cognit 11:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts T, McGreevy P, Valenzuela M (2010) Human induced rotation and reorganization of the brain of domestic dogs. PLoS ONE 5:e11946CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosengren A (1969) Experiments in colour discrimination in dogs. Acta Zool Fenn 121:3–19Google Scholar
  57. Salva OR, Rugani R, Cavazzana A, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2013) Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cognit 16:895–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sherman JA, Chouinard PA (2016) Attractive contours of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Percept Mot Skills 122:88–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sherman SM, Wilson JR (1975) Behavioral and morphological evidence for binocular competition in the postnatal development of the dog’s visual system. J Comp Neurol 161:183–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115:122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V (2002) Dogs’(Canis familaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp Psychol 116:27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Sovrano VA, Albertazzi L, Salva OR (2014) The Ebbinghaus illusion in a fish (Xenotoca eiseni). Anim Cognit 18:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tanaka T, Watanabe T, Eguchi Y, Yoshimoto T (2000) Color discrimination in dogs. Nihon Chik Gakk 71:300–304. doi: 10.2508/chikusan.71.300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tapp PD et al (2004) Concept abstraction in the aging dog: development of a protocol using successive discrimination and size concept tasks. Behav Brain Res 153:199–210. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2003.12.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Udell MA, Wynne CD (2008) A review of domestic dogs’ (canis familiaris) human-like behavior: or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. J Exp Anal Behav 89:247–261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76:1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Von Helmholtz H (1867) Handbuch der physiologischen Optik, vol 9. Voss, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  68. Walls GL (1942) The vertebrate eye and its adaptive radiation. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield MICrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weintraub DJ (1979) Ebbinghaus illusion: context, contour, and age influence the judged size of a circle amidst circles. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5:353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Zigler E (1960) Size estimates of circles as a function of size of adjacent circles. Percept Mot Skills 11:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zigler E, Phillips L (1960) Social effectiveness and symptomatic behaviors. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 61:231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah-Elizabeth Byosiere
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lynna C. Feng
    • 1
  • Jessica K. Woodhead
    • 1
  • Nicholas J. Rutter
    • 1
  • Philippe A. Chouinard
    • 1
  • Tiffani J. Howell
    • 1
  • Pauleen C. Bennett
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Psychology and Public HealthLa Trobe UniversityBendigoAustralia

Personalised recommendations