↓ Skip to main content

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, August 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13423-016-1133-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynna C. Feng, Philippe A. Chouinard, Tiffani J. Howell, Pauleen C. Bennett

Abstract

In humans, geometrical illusions are thought to reflect mechanisms that are usually helpful for seeing the world in a predictable manner. These mechanisms deceive us given the right set of circumstances, correcting visual input where a correction is not necessary. Investigations of non-human animals' susceptibility to geometrical illusions have yielded contradictory results, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms with which animals see the world may differ across species. In this review, we first collate studies showing that different species are susceptible to specific illusions in the same or reverse direction as humans. Based on a careful assessment of these findings, we then propose several ecological and anatomical factors that may affect how a species perceives illusory stimuli. We also consider the usefulness of this information for determining whether sight in different species might be more similar to human sight, being influenced by contextual information, or to how machines process and transmit information as programmed. Future testing in animals could provide new theoretical insights by focusing on establishing dissociations between stimuli that may or may not alter perception in a particular species. This information could improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind illusions, but also provide insight into how sight is subjectively experienced by different animals, and the degree to which vision is innate versus acquired, which is difficult to examine in humans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 29%
Neuroscience 10 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 24%