ArticleScientific reports2025
Specific visual expertise reduces susceptibility to visual illusions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of attention in perceptual biases in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder and healthy controls.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- What contributes to our perception of the Shepard Tabletop Illusion?Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Müller-Lyer Illusion in Adults Increases with Age but Is Not Affected by Mild Visual Acuity Loss.Eye and brain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extensive exposure to specific kinds of imagery tunes visual perception, enhancing recognition and interpretation abilities relevant to those stimuli (e.g. radiologists can rapidly extract important information from medical scans). For the first time, we tested whether specific visual expertise induced by professional training also affords domain-general perceptual advantages. Experts in medical image interpretation (n = 44; reporting radiographers, trainee radiologists, and certified radiologists) and a control group consisting of psychology and medical students (n = 107) responded to the Ebbinghaus, Ponzo, Müller-Lyer, and Shepard Tabletops visual illusions in forced-choice tasks. Our results show that medical image experts were significantly less susceptible to all illusions except for the Shepard Tabletops, demonstrating superior perceptual accuracy. These findings could possibly be attributed to a stronger local processing bias, a by-product of learning to focus on specific areas of interest by disregarding irrelevant context in their domain of expertise.
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.