ArticleJournal of vision2020
When illusions merge.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationships among lightness illusions uncovered by analyses of individual differences.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Age-related changes in the susceptibility to visual illusions of size.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The BTPI: An online battery for measuring susceptibility to visual illusions.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- How we compare areas: The underlying mechanism of the elongation bias.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- A novel visual illusion paradigm provides evidence for a general factor of illusion sensitivity and personality correlates.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- How do visual skills relate to action video game performance?Journal of vision · 2021Article
- Individual differences in the perception of visual illusions are stable across eyes, time, and measurement methods.Journal of vision · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We recently found only weak correlations between the susceptibility to various visual illusions. However, we observed strong correlations among different variants of an illusion, suggesting that the visual space of illusions includes several illusion-specific factors. Here, we specifically examined how factors for the vertical-horizontal, Müller-Lyer, and Ponzo illusions relate to each other. We measured the susceptibility to each illusion separately and to combinations of two illusions, which we refer to as a merged illusion; for example, we tested the Müller-Lyer illusion and the vertical-horizontal illusion, as well as a merged version of both illusions. We used an adjustment procedure in two experiments with 306 and 98 participants, respectively. Using path analyses, correlations, and exploratory factor analyses, we found that the susceptibility to a merged illusion is well predicted from the susceptibilities to the individual illusions. We suggest that there are illusion-specific factors that, by independent combinations, represent the whole visual structure underlying illusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.