↓ Skip to main content

Eye-Tracking Reveals that the Strength of the Vertical-Horizontal Illusion Increases as the Retinal Image Becomes More Stable with Fixation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Eye-Tracking Reveals that the Strength of the Vertical-Horizontal Illusion Increases as the Retinal Image Becomes More Stable with Fixation
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe A. Chouinard, Hayden J. Peel, Oriane Landry

Abstract

The closer a line extends toward a surrounding frame, the longer it appears. This is known as a framing effect. Over 70 years ago, Teodor Künnapas demonstrated that the shape of the visual field itself can act as a frame to influence the perceived length of lines in the vertical-horizontal illusion. This illusion is typically created by having a vertical line rise from the center of a horizontal line of the same length creating an inverted T figure. We aimed to determine if the degree to which one fixates on a spatial location where the two lines bisect could influence the strength of the illusion, assuming that the framing effect would be stronger when the retinal image is more stable. We performed two experiments: the visual-field and vertical-horizontal illusion experiments. The visual-field experiment demonstrated that the participants could discriminate a target more easily when it was presented along the horizontal vs. vertical meridian, confirming a framing influence on visual perception. The vertical-horizontal illusion experiment determined the effects of orientation, size and eye gaze on the strength of the illusion. As predicted, the illusion was strongest when the stimulus was presented in either its standard inverted T orientation or when it was rotated 180° compared to other orientations, and in conditions in which the retinal image was more stable, as indexed by eye tracking. Taken together, we conclude that the results provide support for Teodor Künnapas' explanation of the vertical-horizontal illusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 20%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 5 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,515,285
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,880
of 7,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,737
of 310,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#106
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.