Advertisement

Psychonomic Science

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 147–148 | Cite as

The effect of simulated receptor aging on two types of visual illusions

  • Kristen P. Sjostrom
  • Robert H. Pollack
Perception & Performance Senses

Abstract

A Type I (Delboeuf illusion) and Type II (Usnadze effect) illusion were viewed both through and without a yellow filter by younger and older groups of adults. The filter served to simulate receptor aging by decreasing the visual sensitivity of the Ss. The magnitude of the Type I illusion decreased at both age levels when viewed through the filter, but the magnitude of the Type II illusion did not change. The results indicate that different mechanisms produce the ontogenetic trends of the two types of illusions.

Keywords

Crystalline Lens Visual Sensitivity Illusion Magnitude Test Circle Illusory Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. BIRREN, J. E., BICK, M. W., & FOX, C. Age changes in the light threshold of the dark adapted eye. Journal of Gerontology, 1948, 5, 216–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. LURIA, S. M. Absolute visual threshold and age. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1960, 50, 86–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. OYAMA, T. The illusion of concentric circles as a function of hue and brightness. Hokkaido Report of Psychology, 1961, 6, No. 3.Google Scholar
  4. PIAGET, J. The mechanisms of perception. New York: Basic Books, 1969.Google Scholar
  5. POLLACK, R. H. Contour detectability threshold as a function of chronological age. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1963, 17, 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. POLLACK, R. H. Some implication of ontogenetic changes in perception. In E. Elkind and J. Flavell (Eds.), Essays in cognitive development: Studies in honor of Jean Piaget. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Pp. 365–407.Google Scholar
  7. ROBERTSON, G. W., & YUDKIN, J. Effects of age upon dark adaptation. Journal of Physiology, 1944, 103, 1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. SPITZ, H. H., & BLACKMAN, L. S. The Müller-Lyer illusion in retardates and normals. Perception & Motor Skills, 1958, 219–225.Google Scholar
  9. SPITZ, H. H., & BLACKMAN, L. S. Studies in mental retardation: I. A comparison of mental retardates and normals on visual figural aftereffects and reversible figures. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. STEVENS, D. M. Relationship between dark adaptation and age. Nature (London), 1946, 157, 376–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. WAPNER, S., WERNER, H., & COMALLI, P., JR. Perception of part-whole relationships in middle and old age. Journal of Gerontology, 1960, 15, 412–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. WEALE, R. A. Retinal illumination and age. Illuminating Engineer Society, London Transactions, 1961a, 26, 95–100.Google Scholar
  13. WEALE, R. A. Notes on the photometric significance of the human crystalline lens. Vision Research, 1961b, 1, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. WEALE, R. A. The aging eye. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.Google Scholar
  15. WEINTRAUB, D. J., WILSON, B., Green, R. D., & PALMQUIST, M. Delboeuf illusion: Displacement versus diameter, arc deletions, and brightness contrast. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 80, 505–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Journals, Inc. 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristen P. Sjostrom
    • 1
  • Robert H. Pollack
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations