Archives of Neuroscience

Published by: Kowsar

Top-down Approach to the Investigation of the Neural Basis of Geometric-optical Illusions: Understanding the Brain as a Theoretical Entity

Farshad Nemati 1 , *
Author Information
1 Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Article information
  • Archives of Neuroscience: April 2017, 4 (2); e33683
  • Published Online: April 26, 2017
  • Article Type: Discussion
  • Received: October 8, 2015
  • Accepted: February 8, 2017
  • DOI: 10.5812/archneurosci.33683

To Cite: Nemati F. Top-down Approach to the Investigation of the Neural Basis of Geometric-optical Illusions: Understanding the Brain as a Theoretical Entity, Arch Neurosci. 2017 ; 4(2):e33683. doi: 10.5812/archneurosci.33683.

Abstract
Copyright © 2017, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Introduction
2. Arguments
3. Conclusions
References
  • 1. Robinson JO. The psychology of visual illusion. 2013;
  • 2. Coren S, Girgus JS, Erlichman H, Hakstian AR. An empirical taxonomy of visual illusions. Percept Psychophys. 1976; 20(2): 129-37[DOI]
  • 3. Bach M, Poloschek CM. Optical illusions. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil. 2006; 6(2): 20-1
  • 4. Fodor JA. The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. 1983;
  • 5. Aglioti S, DeSouza JFX, Goodale MA. Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol. 1995; 5(6): 679-85[DOI]
  • 6. Fermuller C, Malm H. Uncertainty in visual processes predicts geometrical optical illusions. Vision Res. 2004; 44(7): 727-49[PubMed]
  • 7. Fermüller C, Shulman D, Aloimonos Y. The Statistics of Optical Flow. Comput Vision Image Understand. 2001; 82(1): 1-32[DOI]
  • 8. Weckowicz TE, Witney G. The Muller-Lyer Illusion in Schizophrenic Patients. Br J Psychiatr. 1960; 106(444): 1002-7[DOI]
  • 9. Happe FG. Studying weak central coherence at low levels: children with autism do not succumb to visual illusions. A research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1996; 37(7): 873-7[PubMed]
  • 10. Ropar D, Mitchell P. Are individuals with autism and Asperger's syndrome susceptible to visual illusions? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1999; 40(8): 1283-93[PubMed]
  • 11. Pessoa VF, Monge-Fuentes V, Simon CY, Suganuma E, Tavares MC. The Muller-Lyer illusion as a tool for schizophrenia screening. Rev Neurosci. 2008; 19(2-3): 91-100[PubMed]
  • 12. King JP, Christensen BK, Westwood DA. Grasping behavior in schizophrenia suggests selective impairment in the dorsal visual pathway. J Abnorm Psychol. 2008; 117(4): 799-811[DOI][PubMed]
  • 13. Kuhn TS, Hawkins D. The structure of scientific revolutions. Am J Phys. 1963; 31(7): 554-5
  • 14. Feyerabend PK. Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Volume 1: Philosophical Papers. 1981;
  • 15. Fodor JA. Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese. 1974; 28(2): 97-115[DOI]
  • 16. McCauley RN. Intertheoretic Relations and the Future of Psychology. Philosophy Sci. 1986; 53(2): 179-99[DOI]
  • 17. van Eck D. Evaluating New Wave Reductionism: The Case of Vision. Br JPhilosophy Sci. 2006; 57(1): 167-96[DOI]
  • 18. Weidner R, Fink GR. The neural mechanisms underlying the Muller-Lyer illusion and its interaction with visuospatial judgments. Cereb Cortex. 2007; 17(4): 878-84[DOI][PubMed]
  • 19. Weidner R, Boers F, Mathiak K, Dammers J, Fink GR. The temporal dynamics of the Muller-Lyer illusion. Cereb Cortex. 2010; 20(7): 1586-95[DOI][PubMed]
  • 20. Qiu J, Li H, Zhang Q, Liu Q, Zhang F. The Muller-Lyer illusion seen by the brain: an event-related brain potentials study. Biol Psychol. 2008; 77(2): 150-8[DOI][PubMed]
  • 21. Causey RL. Unity of science. 2012; 109
  • 22. Piccinini G. Computational explanation in neuroscience. Synthese. 2006; 153(3): 343-53[DOI]
  • 23. Schouten MKD, De Jong HL. Reduction, elimination, and levels: The case of the LTP-learning link. Philosoph Psychol. 1999; 12(3): 237-62[DOI]
  • 24. Julesz B, Schumer RA. Early visual perception. Annu Rev Psychol. 1981; 32: 575-627[DOI][PubMed]
  • 25. Marr D. Vision. 1982;
  • 26. Bickle J. Psychoneural reduction: The new wave. 1998;
  • 27. Birren JE. BOEING, EG: Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. New York, Henry Holt, 1942. Psychosomatic Med. 1944; 6(1): 109
  • 28. Nemati F. Size and direction of distortion in geometric-optical illusions: conciliation between the Muller-Lyer and Titchener configurations. Perception. 2009; 38(11): 1585-600[DOI][PubMed]
  • 29. Pressey AW. A theory of the Mueller-Lyer illusion. Percept Mot Skills. 1967; 25(2): 569-72[DOI][PubMed]
  • 30. Earlebacher A, Sekuler R. Explanation of the Muller-Lyer illusion: Confusion theory examined. J Exp Psychol. 1969; 80(3p1): 462
  • 31. Gregory RL. Concepts and mechanisms of perception. 1974;
  • 32. Goto T, Uchiyama I, Imai A, Takahashi S, Hanari T, Nakamura S, et al. Assimilation and contrast in optical illusions1. Japanese Psychol Res. 2007; 49(1): 33-44[DOI]
  • 33. Massaro DW, Anderson NH. Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. J Exp Psychol. 1971; 89(1): 147-51[PubMed]
  • 34. Ninio J. Geometrical illusions are not always where you think they are: a review of some classical and less classical illusions, and ways to describe them. Frontiers Human Neurosci. 2014; 8[DOI]
  • 35. Ninio J. An algorithm that generates a large number of geometric visual illusions. J Theoretical Biol. 1979; 79(2): 167-201[DOI]
  • 36. Day R. On the common stimulus condition and explanation of the Müller-Lyer, Poggendorff and Zöllner illusions: The basis for a class of geometrical illusions. Aust J Psychol. 2010; 62(3): 115-20[DOI]
  • 37. Pressey AW, Murray R. Further developments in the assimilation theory of geometric illusions: The adjacency ,principle. Percept Psychophys. 1976; 19(6): 536-44[DOI]
  • 38. Woloszyn MR. Contrasting Three Popular Explanations for the Muller-Lyer Illusion. Curr Res Psychol. 2010; 1(2): 102-7[DOI]
  • 39. Nemati F. Scientific Progress in Psychology and Neuroscience of Perception: Computation, Realization, and Reduction. Can J Exp Psychol. 2012; 66(4): 317
  • 40. Schwarzkopf DS, Song C, Rees G. The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nat Neurosci. 2011; 14(1): 28-30[DOI][PubMed]
  • 41. Shoemaker S. Some varieties of functionalism reprinted in his Identity, Cause, and Mind. 1981;
  • 42. Wilson RA. Two views of realization. Philosophical Stud. 2001; 104(1): 1-31
  • 43. Endicott RP. Many-many mappings and world structure. Am Philosophical Q. 1998; 35(3): 267-80
  • 44. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN. Receptive Fields and Functional Architecture in Two Nonstriate Visual Areas (18 and 19) of the Cat. J Neurophysiol. 1965; 28: 229-89[PubMed]
  • 45. Cox MA, Schmid MC, Peters AJ, Saunders RC, Leopold DA, Maier A. Receptive field focus of visual area V4 neurons determines responses to illusory surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(42): 17095-100[DOI][PubMed]
  • 46. Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 1996;
  • 47. Haffenden AM, Schiff KC, Goodale MA. The dissociation between perception and action in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Curr Biol. 2001; 11(3): 177-81[DOI]
  • 48. Notredame CE, Pins D, Deneve S, Jardri R. What visual illusions teach us about schizophrenia. Frontiers Integrat Neurosci. 2014; 8[DOI]
  • 49. Chalmers DJ. The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. 1996;
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .
Readers' Comments