Abstract
The explanation of apparent misalignment in the Poggendorff figure, based on underestimation of the intertransversal distance, was investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, subjects judged the intertransversal distance in the traditional Poggendorfffigure and two of its variants. The size of the acute angle and the intertransversal distance were manipulated. Half of the subjects made the judgments with the method used by Wilson and Pressey (1976) and the other half made their judgments with the method used by Greist-Bousquet and Schiffman (1981). The results indicated that perceived intertransversal distance was greater with the former method. In Experiment 2, subjects adjusted the transversals to apparent collinearity in the same displays as were used in Experiment 1. The collinearity judgments were transformed to allow comparison with the results of Experiment 1. Comparison of the collinearity judgments with the distance judgments indicated that they did not follow similar trends. For each Poggendorff variant, proportional distance judgments increased as the size of the acute angle increased, and decreased as the intertransversal distance increased. Collinearity judgments did not vary as a function of intertransversal distance. As the size of the acute angle increased, collinearity judgments increased for two of the Poggendorff variants but decreased for the third. It was concluded that the findings did not support the explanation of apparent misalignment based on underestimation of the intertransversal distance.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Day, R. H. (1973). The Poggendorff illusion with obtuse and acute angles.Perception and Psychophysics,14, 590–596.
Day, R. H., &Dickinson, R. G. (1976). The components of the Poggendorff illusion.British Journal of Psychology,67, 537–552.
Day, R. H., Jolly, W. J., &Duffy, F. M. (1987). No evidence for apparent extent between parallels as the basis of the Poggendorff effect.Perception & Psychophysics,42, 561–568.
Finlay, D. c., &Caelli, T. M. (1975). The Poggendorff illusion and estimates of the transverse extent.Perceptual & Motor Skills,41, 143–148.
Greist-Bousquet, S., &Schiffman, H. R. (1981). The Poggendorff illusion: An illusion of linear extent?Perception,10, 155–164.
Greist-Bousquet, S., &Schiffman, H. R. (1985). Poggendorff and Müller-Lyer illusions: Common effects.Perception,14, 427–447.
Houck, R. L., &Mefford, R. B. (1973). The Poggendorff illusion: A neurophysiologically based hypothesis.American Journal of Psychology, 86, 283–309.
Judd, C. H. (1899). A study of geometrical illusions.Psychological Review,6, 241–261.
Keppel, G. (1973).Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pierce, A H. (1901).Studies in auditory and visual space perception. New York: Longmans Green.
Quina-Holland, K. (1977). Spatial distortions within the Poggendorff figure and its variants: A parametric analysis.Perception & Psychophysics,21, 118–124.
Restle, F. (1969). Illusions of bent line.Perception & Psychophysics,5, 273–274.
Restle, F., &Decker, J. (1977). Size of the Mueller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions: Theory and data.Perception & Psychophysics,21, 489–503.
Wilson, A. E., &Pressey, A. W. (1976). The role of apparent distance in the Poggendorff illusion.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 309–316.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research is based on a Master’s thesis submitted to the University of New Brunswick by M. T. Trueman. The research was sponsored by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (A8323).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Trueman, M.T., Wilson, A.E. Examination of apparent extent as an explanation of the Poggendorff effect. Perception & Psychophysics 45, 494–500 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208056
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208056