ArticlePerception2026
Global-local processing and the Ebbinghaus illusion: Group and individual differences in young and older adults.
Article in Perception, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Ebbinghaus illusion is a size illusion, in which a central circle appears larger or smaller depending on the size of surrounding circles. This illusion is widely used to study group-level differences in attentional processing, with the proposal that a local-processing bias reduces susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. One hundred and forty-five participants (87 young; 58 older) were included in the analyses. Participants completed the Navon hierarchical-figures task, to measure the global-local processing bias, and the Ebbinghaus illusion task, to measure susceptibility to the illusion. First, we investigated whether a strong local-processing bias reduced susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. Our findings did not support this proposal. At the group level, older participants demonstrated worse performance for global processing compared to young participants, but there were no age-group differences in susceptibility to the illusion. At the individual level, the young and older participants with the stronger local-processing bias were the participants with greater susceptibility to the illusion. Second, we investigated whether longer inspection times during the Ebbinghaus illusion task reduced susceptibility to the illusion. Our findings did support this proposal. At the group level, there were no age-group differences in either inspection time or susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. At the individual level, we replicated previous findings-the participants with the longer inspection times were the participants with the least susceptibility to the illusion. We discuss alternative cognitive mechanisms that may account for the Ebbinghaus illusion and their relevance to age-related changes and individual differences in visual attention.
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.