title: The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades is modulated by spatial predictability and saccadic latency.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: 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
authors.forename: Denise D J
authors.initials: DD
authors.lastname: de Grave
authors.forename: Nicola
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Bruno
mesh_terms: 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
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Feb;27(1):3-24; discussion 24-78
references.pmid: 15481943
references.citation: J Mot Behav. 2009 Mar;41(2):117-27
references.pmid: 19201682
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008 Oct-Dec;25(7-8):891-919
references.pmid: 18608333
references.citation: Psychol Forsch. 1968;31(4):299-348
references.pmid: 4973634
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2007 Oct 16;426(2):111-6
references.pmid: 17890003
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2001 Apr;137(3-4):303-8
references.pmid: 11355377
references.citation: J Vis. 2006 Jun 29;6(7):727-38
references.pmid: 16895455
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1999 Jul;127(1):95-101
references.pmid: 10424418
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Oct;175(1):177-82
references.pmid: 16733700
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989 Aug;30(8):1883-93
references.pmid: 2759803
references.citation: Vision Res. 1987;27(2):227-40
references.pmid: 3576983
references.citation: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(3):423-37
references.pmid: 17976722
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008 Oct;25(7):920-50
references.pmid: 18629739
references.citation: Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2006 Jan;223(1):84-7
references.pmid: 16418941
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Oct;174(3):544-54
references.pmid: 16645876
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2008 Apr 23;28(17):4317-21
references.pmid: 18434509
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Sep 1;5(9):379-382
references.pmid: 11520701
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):19-31
references.pmid: 7707030
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5
references.pmid: 1374953
references.citation: Curr Biol. 1995 Jun 1;5(6):679-85
references.pmid: 7552179
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1999 Jul;127(2):193-206
references.pmid: 10442411
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2000 Jan;11(1):20-5
references.pmid: 11228838
references.citation: Spat Vis. 2003;16(3-4):243-54
references.pmid: 12858950
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Dec;25(6):1659-72
references.pmid: 10641314
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Dec;32(6):1501-4
references.pmid: 17154790
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2005 Apr;162(2):133-44
references.pmid: 15791463
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2000 Nov;84(5):2595-604
references.pmid: 11068001
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;179(4):563-70
references.pmid: 17171535
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Nov;175(4):764-8
references.pmid: 17051374
references.citation: Vision Res. 1984;24(5):429-48
references.pmid: 6740964
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2002;140:89-96
references.pmid: 12508584
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2004 Mar;155(1):56-62
references.pmid: 15064885
references.citation: Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Mar;1(1):52-62
references.pmid: 24168245
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2009 May;47(6):1421-33
references.pmid: 19059422
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2008 Feb 12;46(3):774-85
references.pmid: 18037456
references.citation: J Vis. 2003 Dec 04;3(11):751-60
references.pmid: 14765958
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Nov 1;5(11):457-459
references.pmid: 11684465
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;14(2):203-11
references.pmid: 15082326
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1981 Aug;48(1-3):123-31
references.pmid: 7304220
references.citation: J Comp Neurol. 1990 Oct 1;300(1):5-25
references.pmid: 2229487
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Mar;170(1):127-35
references.pmid: 16501960
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2008 Jul;188(3):371-8
references.pmid: 18427794