SOME TYPES OF GEOMETRICAL ILLUSIONS

Visual Illusions: Their Causes, Characteristics and Applications by Matthew Luckiesh is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here. SOME TYPES OF GEOMETRICAL ILLUSIONS

IV. SOME TYPES OF GEOMETRICAL ILLUSIONS

No simple classification of illusions is ample or satisfactory, for there are many factors interwoven. For this reason no claims are made for the various divisions of the subject represented by and in these chapters excepting that of convenience. Obviously, some divisions are necessary in order that the variegated subject may be presentable. The classification used appears to be logical but very evidently it cannot be perfectly so when the “logic” is not wholly available, owing to the disagreement found among the explanations offered by psychologists. It may be argued that the “geometrical” type of illusion should include many illusions which are discussed in other chapters. Indeed, this is perhaps true. However, it appears to suit the present purpose to introduce this phase of this book by a group of illusions which involve plane geometrical figures. If some of the latter appear in other chapters, it is because they seem to border upon or to include other factors beyond those apparently involved in the simple geometrical type. The presentation which follows begins (for the sake of clearness) with a few representative geometrical illusions of various types.

The Effect of the Location in the Visual Field.—One of the most common illusions is found in the[Pg 45] letter “S” or figure “8.” Ordinarily we are not strongly conscious of a difference in the size of the upper and lower parts of these characters; however, if we invert them (8888 SSSS) the difference is seen to be large. The question arises, Is the difference due fundamentally to the locations of the two parts in the visual field? It scarcely seems credible that visual perception innately appraises the upper part larger than the lower, or the lower smaller than the upper part when these small characters are seen in their accustomed position. It appears to be possible that here we have examples of the effect of learning or experience and that our adaptive visual sense has become accustomed to overlook the actual difference. That is, for some reason through being confronted with this difference so many times, the intellect has become adapted to it and, therefore, has grown to ignore it. Regardless of the explanation, the illusion exists and this is the point of chief interest. For the same reason the curvature of the retina does not appear to account for illusion through distortion of the image, because the training due to experience has caused greater difficulties than this to disappear. We must not overlook the tremendous “corrective” influence of experience upon which visual perception for the adult is founded. If we have learned to “correct” in some cases, why not in all cases which we have encountered quite generally?

Fig. 4.—The vertical line appears longer than the equal horizontal line in each case.

This type of illusion persists in geometrical figures and may be found on every hand. A perfect square when viewed vertically appears too high, although the illusion does not appear to exist in the circle. In Fig. 4 the vertical line appears longer than the horizontal line of the same length. This may be readily demonstrated by the reader by means of a variety of figures. A striking case is found in Fig. 5, where the height and the width of the diagram of a silk hat are equal. Despite the actual equality the height appears to be much greater than the width. A pole or a tree is generally appraised as of greater length when it is standing than when it lies on the ground. This illusion may be demonstrated by placing a black dot an inch or so above another on a white paper. Now, at right angles to the original dot place another at a horizontal distance which appears equal to the vertical distance of the first dot above the original. On turning the paper through ninety degrees or by actual measurement, the extent of the illusion will become apparent. By doing this several times, using various distances, this type of illusion becomes convincing.

Fig. 5.—The vertical dimension is equal to the horizontal one, but the former appears greater.

The explanation accepted by some is that more effort is required to raise the eyes, or point of sight, through a certain vertical distance than through an equal horizontal distance. Perhaps we unconsciously appraise effort of this sort in terms of distance, but is it not logical to inquire why we have not through experience learned to sense the difference between the relation of effort to horizontal distance and that of effort to vertical distance through which the point of sight is moved? We are doing this continuously, so why do we not learn to distinguish; furthermore, we have overcome other great obstacles in developing our visual sense. In this complex field of physiological psychology questions are not only annoying, but often disruptive.

[Pg 48]As has been pointed out in Chapter II, images of objects lying near the periphery of the visual field are more or less distorted, owing to the structure and to certain defects of parts of the eye. For example, a checkerboard viewed at a proper distance with respect to its size appears quite distorted in its outer regions. Cheap cameras are likely to cause similar errors in the images fixed upon the photographic plate. Photographs are interesting in connection with visual illusions, because of certain distortions and of the magnification of such aspects as perspective. Incidentally in looking for illusions, difficulty is sometimes experienced in seeing them when the actual physical truths are known; that is, in distinguishing between what is actually seen and what actually exists. The ability to make this separation grows with practice but where the difficulty is obstinate, it is well for the reader to try observers who do not suspect the truth.

Illusions of Interrupted Extent.—Distance and area appear to vary in extent, depending upon whether they are filled or empty or are only partially filled. For example, a series of dots will generally appear longer overall than an equal distance between two points. This may be easily demonstrated by arranging three dots in a straight line on paper, the two intervening spaces being of equal extent, say about one or two inches long. If in one of the spaces a series of a dozen dots is placed, this space will appear longer than the empty space. However, if only one dot is placed in the middle of one of the empty spaces, this space now is likely to appear of less extent than the[Pg 49] empty space. (See Fig. 7.) A specific example of this type of illusion is shown in Fig. 6. The filled or divided space generally appears greater than the empty or undivided space, but certain qualifications of this statement are necessary. In a the divided space unquestionably appears greater than the empty space. Apparently the filled or empty space is more important than the amount of light which is received from the clear spaces, for a black line on white paper appears longer than a white space between two points separated a distance equal to the length of the black line. Furthermore, apparently the spacing which is the most obtrusive is most influential in causing the divided space to appear greater for a than for b. The illusion still persists in c.

Fig. 6.—The divided or filled space on the left appears longer than the equal space on the right.

An idea of the magnitude may be gained from certain experiments by Aubert. He used a figure similar to a Fig. 6 containing a total of five short lines.[Pg 50] Four of them were equally spaced over a distance of 100 mm. corresponding to the left half of a, Fig. 6. The remaining line was placed at the extreme right and defined the limit of an empty space also 100 mm. long. In all cases, the length of the empty space appeared about ten per cent less than that of the space occupied by the four lines equally spaced. Various experimenters obtain different results, and it seems reasonable that the differences may be accounted for, partially at least, by different degrees of unconscious correction of the illusion. This emphasizes the desirability of using subjects for such experiments who have no knowledge pertaining to the illusion.

Fig. 7.—The three lines are of equal length.

Fig. 8.—The distance between the two circles on the left is equal to the distance between the outside edges of the two circles on the right.

As already stated there are apparent exceptions to any simple rule, for, as in the case of dots cited in a preceding paragraph, the illusion depends upon the manner in which the division is made. For example, in Fig. 7, a and c are as likely to appear shorter than b as equal to it. It has been concluded by certain investigators that when subdivision of a line causes it to appear longer, the parts into which it is divided or some of them are likely to appear shorter than isolated lines of the same length. The reverse of this statement also appears to hold. For example in[Pg 51] Fig. 7, a appears shorter than b and the central part appears lengthened, although the total line appears shortened. This illusion is intensified by leaving the central section blank. A figure of this sort can be readily drawn by the reader by using short straight lines in place of the circles in Fig. 8. In this figure the space between the inside edges of the two circles on the left appears larger than the overall distance between the outside edges of the two circles on the right, despite the fact that these distances are equal. It appears that mere intensity of retinal stimulation does not account for these illusions, but rather the figures which we see.

Fig. 9.—Three squares of equal dimensions which appear different in area and dimension.

In Fig. 9 the three squares are equal in dimensions but the different characters of the divisions cause them to appear not only unequal, but no longer squares. In Fig. 10 the distance between the outside edges of the three circles arranged horizontally appears greater than the empty space between the upper circle and the left-hand circle of the group.

Fig. 10.—The vertical distance between the upper circle and the left-hand
one of the group is equal to the overall length of the group of three circles.

Illusions of Contour.—The illusions of this type, or exhibiting this influence, are quite numerous. In Fig. 11 there are two semicircles, one closed by a diameter, the other unclosed. The latter appears somewhat flatter and of slightly greater radius than the closed one. Similarly in Fig. 12 the shorter portion of the interrupted circumference of a circle appears flatter and of greater radius of curvature than the greater portions. In Fig. 13 the length of the[Pg 53] middle space and of the open-sided squares are equal. In fact there are two uncompleted squares and an empty “square” between, the three of which are of equal dimensions. However the middle space appears slightly too high and narrow; the other two appear slightly too low and broad. These figures are related to the well-known Müller-Lyer illusion illustrated in Fig. 56. Some of the illusions presented later will be seen to involve the influence of contour. Examples of these are Figs. 55 and 60. In the former, the horizontal base line appears to sag; in the latter, the areas appear unequal, but they are equal.

Fig. 11.—Two equal semicircles.

Fig. 12.—Arcs of the same circle.

Fig. 13.—Three incomplete but equal squares.

Illusions of Contrast.—Those illusions due to brightness contrast are not included in this group,[Pg 54] for “contrast” here refers to lines, angles and areas of different sizes. In general, parts adjacent to large extents appear smaller and those adjacent to small extents appear larger. A simple case is shown in Fig. 14, where the middle sections of the two lines are equal, but that of the shorter line appears longer than that of the longer line. In Fig. 15 the two parts of the connecting line are equal, but they do not appear so. This illusion is not as positive as the preceding one and, in fact, the position of the short vertical dividing line may appear to fluctuate considerably.

Fig. 14.—Middle sections of the two lines are equal.

Fig. 15.—An effect of contrasting areas (Baldwin’s figure).

Fig. 16 might be considered to be an illusion of contour, but the length of the top horizontal line of the lower figure being apparently less than that of the top line of the upper figure is due largely to contrasting the two figures. Incidentally, it is difficult to believe that the maximum horizontal width of the lower figure is as great as the maximum height of the figure. At this point it is of interest to refer to other contrast illusions such as Figs. 20, 57, and 59.

Fig. 16.—An illusion of contrast.

A striking illusion of contrast is shown in Fig. 17, where the central circles of the two figures are equal, although the one surrounded by the large circles appears much smaller than the other. Similarly, in Fig. 18 the inner circles of b and c are equal but that of b appears the larger. The inner circle of a appears larger than the outer circle of b, despite their actual equality.

Fig. 17.—Equal circles which appear unequal due to contrast (Ebbinghaus’ figure).

Fig. 18.—Equal circles appearing unequal owing to contrasting concentric circles.

In Fig. 19 the circle nearer the apex of the angle appears larger than the other. This has been presented as one reason why the sun and moon appear larger at the horizon than when at higher altitudes. This explanation must be based upon the assumption that we interpret the “vault” of the sky to meet [Pg 57]at the horizon in a manner somewhat similar to the angle but it is difficult to imagine such an angle made by the vault of the sky and the earth’s horizon. If there were one in reality, it would not be seen in profile.

Fig. 19.—Circles influenced by position within an angle.

Fig. 20.—Contrasting angles.

If two angles of equal size are bounded by small and large angles respectively, the apex in each case being common to the inner and two bounding angles, the effect of contrast is very apparent, as seen in Fig. 20. In Fig. 57 are found examples of effects of lines contrasted as to length.

Fig. 21.—Owing to perspective the right angles appear oblique and vice versa.

The reader may readily construct an extensive variety of illusions of contrast; in fact, contrast plays a part in most geometrical-optical illusions. The contrasts may be between existing lines, areas, etc., or the imagination may supply some of them.

Fig. 22.—Two equal diagonals which appear unequal.

Illusions of Perspective.—As the complexity of figures is increased the number of possible illusions is multiplied. In perspective we have the influences of various factors such as lines, angles, and sometimes contour and contrast. In Fig. 21 the [Pg 59]suggestion due to the perspective of the cube causes right angles to appear oblique and oblique angles to appear to be right angles. This figure is particularly illusive. It is interesting to note that even an after-image of a right-angle cross when projected upon a wall drawn in perspective in a painting will appear oblique.

Fig. 23.—Apparent variations in the distance between two parallel lines.

A striking illusion involving perspective, or at least the influence of angles, is shown in Fig. 22. Here the diagonals of the two parallelograms are of equal length but the one on the right appears much smaller. That AX is equal in length to AY is readily demonstrated by describing a circle from the center A and with a radius equal to AX. It will be found to pass through the point Y. Obviously, geometry abounds in geometrical-optical illusions.

Fig. 24.—A striking illusion of perspective.

The effect of contrast is seen in a in Fig. 23; that is, the short parallel lines appear further apart than the pair of long ones. By adding the oblique lines at the ends of the lower pair in b, these parallel lines now appear further apart than the horizontal parallel lines of the small rectangle.

The influence of perspective is particularly apparent in Fig. 24, where natural perspective lines are drawn to suggest a scene. The square columns are of the same size but the further one, for example, being apparently the most distant and of the same[Pg 61] physical dimensions, actually appears much larger. Here is a case where experience, allowing for a diminution of size with increasing distance, actually causes the column on the right to appear larger than it really is. The artist will find this illusion even more striking if he draws three human figures of the same size but similarly disposed in respect to perspective lines. Apparently converging lines influence these equal figures in proportion as they suggest perspective.

Fig. 25.—Distortion of a square due to superposed lines.

Although they are not necessarily illusions of perspective, Figs. 25 and 26 are presented here because they involve similar influences. In Fig. 25 the hollow square is superposed upon groups of oblique lines so arranged as to apparently distort the square.[Pg 62] In Fig. 26 distortions of the circumference of a circle are obtained in a similar manner.

Fig. 26.—Distortion of a circle due to superposed lines.

It is interesting to note that we are not particularly conscious of perspective, but it is seen that it has been a factor in the development of our visual perception. In proof of this we might recall the first time as children we were asked to draw a railroad track trailing off in the distance. Doubtless, most of us drew two parallel lines instead of converging ones.[Pg 63] A person approaching us is not sensibly perceived to grow. He is more likely to be perceived all the time as of normal size. The finger held at some distance may more than cover the object such as a distant person, but the finger is not ordinarily perceived as larger than the person. Of course, when we think of it we are conscious of perspective and of the increase in size of an approaching object. When a locomotive or automobile approaches very rapidly, this “growth” is likely to be so striking as to be generally noticeable. The reader may find it of interest at this point to turn to illustrations in other chapters.

The foregoing are a few geometrical illusions of representative types. These are not all the types of illusions by any means and they are only a few of an almost numberless host. These have been presented in a brief classification in order that the reader might not be overwhelmed by the apparent chaos. Various special and miscellaneous geometrical illusions are presented in later chapters.

About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books.

This book is part of the public domain. Matthew Luckiesh (2011). Visual Illusions: Their Causes, Characteristics and Applications. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/36297/pg36297-images.html

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html.