The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades is modulated by spatial predictability and saccadic latency.
Studies investigating the effect of visual illusions on saccadic eye movements have provided a wide variety of results. In this study, we test three factors that might explain this variability: the spatial predictability of the stimulus, the duration of the stimulus and the latency of the saccades. Participants made a saccade from one end of a Müller-Lyer figure to the other end. By changing the spatial predictability of the stimulus, we find that the illusion has a clear effect on saccades (16%) when the stimulus is at a highly predictable location. Even stronger effects of the illusion are found when the stimulus location becomes more unpredictable (19-23%). Conversely, manipulating the duration of the stimulus fails to reveal a clear difference in illusion effect. Finally, by computing the illusion effect for different saccadic latencies, we find a maximum illusion effect (about 30%) for very short latencies, which decreases by 7% with every 100 ms latency increase. We conclude that spatial predictability of the stimulus and saccadic latency influences the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades.
de Grave
Denise D J
DD
Research Institute MOVE, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.degrave@fbw.vu.nl
Bruno
Nicola
N
D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007088:Illusions / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D012438:Saccades / Q000502:physiology*; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D013997:Time Factors
Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Feb;27(1):3-24; discussion 24-78
15481943
J Mot Behav. 2009 Mar;41(2):117-27
19201682
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008 Oct-Dec;25(7-8):891-919
18608333
Psychol Forsch. 1968;31(4):299-348
4973634
Neurosci Lett. 2007 Oct 16;426(2):111-6
17890003
Exp Brain Res. 2001 Apr;137(3-4):303-8
11355377
J Vis. 2006 Jun 29;6(7):727-38
16895455
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Jul;127(1):95-101
10424418
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Oct;175(1):177-82
16733700
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989 Aug;30(8):1883-93
2759803
Vision Res. 1987;27(2):227-40
3576983
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(3):423-37
17976722
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008 Oct;25(7):920-50
18629739
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2006 Jan;223(1):84-7
16418941
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Oct;174(3):544-54
16645876
J Neurosci. 2008 Apr 23;28(17):4317-21
18434509
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Sep 1;5(9):379-382
11520701
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):19-31
7707030
Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5
1374953
Curr Biol. 1995 Jun 1;5(6):679-85
7552179
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Jul;127(2):193-206
10442411
Psychol Sci. 2000 Jan;11(1):20-5
11228838
Spat Vis. 2003;16(3-4):243-54
12858950
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Dec;25(6):1659-72
10641314
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Dec;32(6):1501-4
17154790
Exp Brain Res. 2005 Apr;162(2):133-44
15791463
J Neurophysiol. 2000 Nov;84(5):2595-604
11068001
Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;179(4):563-70
17171535
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Nov;175(4):764-8
17051374
Vision Res. 1984;24(5):429-48
6740964
Prog Brain Res. 2002;140:89-96
12508584
Exp Brain Res. 2004 Mar;155(1):56-62
15064885
Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Mar;1(1):52-62
24168245
Neuropsychologia. 2009 May;47(6):1421-33
19059422
Neuropsychologia. 2008 Feb 12;46(3):774-85
18037456
J Vis. 2003 Dec 04;3(11):751-60
14765958
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Nov 1;5(11):457-459
11684465
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;14(2):203-11
15082326
Acta Psychol (Amst). 1981 Aug;48(1-3):123-31
7304220
J Comp Neurol. 1990 Oct 1;300(1):5-25
2229487
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Mar;170(1):127-35
16501960
Exp Brain Res. 2008 Jul;188(3):371-8
18427794