Part 5

A striking illusion involving perspective, or at least the influence of angles, is shown in Fig. 22. Here the diagonals of the two parallelograms are of equal length but the one on the right appears much smaller. That _AX_ is equal in length to _AY_ is readily demonstrated by describing a circle from the center _A_ and with a radius equal to _AX_. It will be found to pass through the point _Y_. Obviously, geometry abounds in geometrical-optical illusions.

The effect of contrast is seen in _a_ in Fig. 23; that is, the short parallel lines appear further apart than the pair of long ones. By adding the oblique lines at the ends of the lower pair in _b_, these parallel lines now appear further apart than the horizontal parallel lines of the small rectangle.

The influence of perspective is particularly apparent in Fig. 24, where natural perspective lines are drawn to suggest a scene. The square columns are of the same size but the further one, for example, being apparently the most distant and of the same physical dimensions, actually appears much larger. Here is a case where experience, allowing for a diminution of size with increasing distance, actually causes the column on the right to appear larger than it really is. The artist will find this illusion even more striking if he draws three human figures of the same size but similarly disposed in respect to perspective lines. Apparently converging lines influence these equal figures in proportion as they suggest perspective.

Although they are not necessarily illusions of perspective, Figs. 25 and 26 are presented here because they involve similar influences. In Fig. 25 the hollow square is superposed upon groups of oblique lines so arranged as to apparently distort the square. In Fig. 26 distortions of the circumference of a circle are obtained in a similar manner.

It is interesting to note that we are not particularly conscious of perspective, but it is seen that it has been a factor in the development of our visual perception. In proof of this we might recall the first time as children we were asked to draw a railroad track trailing off in the distance. Doubtless, most of us drew two parallel lines instead of converging ones. A person approaching us is not sensibly perceived to grow. He is more likely to be perceived all the time as of normal size. The finger held at some distance may more than cover the object such as a distant person, but the finger is not ordinarily perceived as larger than the person. Of course, when we think of it we are conscious of perspective and of the increase in size of an approaching object. When a locomotive or automobile approaches very rapidly, this "growth" is likely to be so striking as to be generally noticeable. The reader may find it of interest at this point to turn to illustrations in other chapters.

The foregoing are a few geometrical illusions of representative types. These are not all the types of illusions by any means and they are only a few of an almost numberless host. These have been presented in a brief classification in order that the reader might not be overwhelmed by the apparent chaos. Various special and miscellaneous geometrical illusions are presented in later chapters.

V

EQUIVOCAL FIGURES

Many figures apparently change in appearance owing to fluctuations in attention and in associations. A human profile in intaglio (Figs. 72 and 73) may appear as a bas-relief. Crease a card in the middle to form an angle and hold it at an arm's length. When viewed with one eye it can be made to appear open in one way or the other; that is, the angle may be made to appear pointing toward the observer or away from him. The more distant part of an object may be made to appear nearer than the remaining part. Plane diagrams may seem to be solids. Deception of this character is quite easy if the light-source and other extraneous factors are concealed from the observer. It is very interesting to study these fluctuating figures and to note the various extraneous data which lead us to judge correctly. Furthermore, it becomes obvious that often we see what we expect to see. For example, we more commonly encounter relief than intaglio; therefore, we are likely to think that we are looking at the former.

Proper consideration of the position of the dominant light-source and of the shadows will usually provide the data for a correct conclusion. However, habit and probability are factors whose influence is difficult to overcome. Our perception is strongly associated with accustomed ways of seeing objects and when the object is once suggested it grasps our mind completely in its stereotyped form. Stairs, glasses, rings, cubes, and intaglios are among the objects commonly used to illustrate this type of illusion. In connection with this type, it is well to realize how tenaciously we cling to our perception of the real shapes of objects. For example, a cube thrown into the air in such a manner that it presents many aspects toward us is throughout its course a cube.

The figures which exhibit these illusions are obviously those which are capable of two or more spatial relations. The double interpretation is more readily accomplished by monocular than by binocular vision. Fig. 27 consists of identical patterns in black and white. By gazing upon this steadily it will appear to fluctuate in appearance from a white pattern upon a black background to a black pattern upon a white background. Sometimes fluctuation of attention apparently accounts for the change and, in fact, this can be tested by willfully altering the attention from a white pattern to a black one. Incidentally one investigator found that the maximum rate of fluctuation was approximately equal to the pulse rate, although no connection between the two was claimed. It has also been found that inversion is accompanied by a change in refraction of the eye.

Another example is shown in Fig. 28. This may appear to be white circles upon a black background or a black mesh upon a white background. However, the more striking phenomenon is the change in the grouping of the circles as attention fluctuates. We may be conscious of hollow diamonds of circles, one inside the other, and then suddenly the pattern may change to groups of diamonds consisting of four circles each. Perhaps we may be momentarily conscious of individual circles; then the pattern may change to a hexagonal one, each "hexagon" consisting of seven circles--six surrounding a central one. The pattern also changes into parallel strings of circles, triangles, etc.

The crossed lines in Fig. 29 can be seen as right angles in perspective with two different spatial arrangements of one or both lines. In fact there is quite a tendency to see such crossed lines as right angles in perspective. The two groups on the right represent a simplified Zoellner's illusion (Fig. 37). The reader may find it interesting to spend some time viewing these figures and in exercising his ability to fluctuate his attention. In fact, he must call upon his imagination in these cases. Sometimes the changes are rapid and easy to bring about. At other moments he will encounter an aggravating stubbornness. Occasionally there may appear a conflict of two appearances simultaneously in the same figure. The latter may be observed occasionally in Fig. 30. Eye-movements are brought forward by some to aid in explaining the changes.

In Fig. 30 a reversal of the aspect of the individual cubes or of their perspective is very apparent. At rare moments the effect of perspective may be completely vanquished and the figure be made to appear as a plane crossed by strings of white diamonds and zigzag black strips.

The illusion of the bent card or partially open book is seen in Fig. 31. The tetrahedron in Fig. 32 may appear either as erect on its base or as leaning backward with its base seen from underneath.

The series of rings in Fig. 33 may be imagined to form a tube such as a sheet-metal pipe with its axis lying in either of two directions. Sometimes by closing one eye the two changes in this type of illusion are more readily brought about. It is also interesting to close and open each eye alternately, at the same time trying to note just where the attention is fixed.

The familiar staircase is represented in Fig. 34. It is likely to appear in its usual position and then suddenly to invert. It may aid in bringing about the reversal to insist that one end of a step is first nearer than the other and then farther away. By focusing the attention in this manner the fluctuation becomes an easy matter to obtain.

In Fig. 35 is a similar example. First one part will appear solid and the other an empty corner, then suddenly both are reversed. However, it is striking to note one half changes while the other remains unchanged, thus producing momentarily a rather peculiar figure consisting of two solids, for example, attached by necessarily warped surfaces.

Perhaps the reader has often witnessed the striking illusion of some portraits which were made of subjects looking directly at the camera or painter. Regardless of the position of the observer the eyes of the portrait appear to be directed toward him. In fact, as the observer moves, the eyes in the picture follow him so relentlessly as to provoke even a feeling of uncanniness. This fact is accounted for by the absence of a third dimension, for a sculptured model of a head does not exhibit this feature. Perspective plays a part in some manner, but no attempt toward explanation will be made.

In Fig. 36 are two sketches of a face. One appears to be looking at the observer, but the other does not. If the reader will cover the lower parts of the two figures, leaving only the two pairs of eyes showing, both pairs will eventually appear to be looking at the observer. Perhaps the reader will be conscious of mental effort and the lapse of a few moments before the eyes on the left are made to appear to be looking directly at him. Although it is not claimed that this illusion is caused by the same conditions as those immediately preceding, it involves attention. At least, it is fluctuating in appearance and therefore is equivocal. It is interesting to note the influence of the other features (below the eyes). The perspective of these is a powerful influence in "directing" the eyes of the sketch.

In the foregoing only definite illusions have been presented which are universally witnessed by normal persons. There are no hallucinatory phases in the conditions or causes. It is difficult to divide these with definiteness from certain illusions of depth as discussed in Chapter VII. The latter undoubtedly are sometimes entwined to some extent with hallucinatory phases; in fact, it is doubtful if they are not always hallucinations to some degree. Hallucinations are not of interest from the viewpoint of this book, but illusions of depth are treated because they are of interest. They are either hallucinations or are on the border-line between hallucinations and those illusions which are almost universally experienced by normal persons under similar conditions. The latter statement does not hold for illusions of depth in which objects may be seen alternately near and far, large and small, etc., although they are not necessarily pure hallucinations as distinguished from the types of illusions regarding which there is general perceptual agreement.

In explanation of the illusory phenomena pertaining to such geometrical figures as are discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, chiefly two different kinds of hypotheses have been offered. They are respectively psychological and physiological, although there is more or less of a mixture of the two in most attempts toward explanation. The psychological hypotheses introduce such factors as attention, imagination, judgment, and will. Hering and also Helmholtz claim that the kind of inversion which occurs is largely a matter of chance or of volition. The latter holds that the perception of perspective figures is influenced by imagination or the images of memory. That is, if one form of the figure is vividly imagined the perception of it is imminent. Helmholtz has stated that, "Glancing at a figure we observe spontaneously one or the other form of perspective and usually the one that is associated in our memory with the greatest number of images."

The physiological hypotheses depend largely upon such factors as accommodation and eye-movement. Necker held to the former as the chief cause. He has stated that the part of the figure whose image lies near the fovea is estimated as nearer than those portions in the peripheral regions of the visual field. This hypothesis is open to serious objections. Wundt contends that the inversion is caused by changes in the points and lines of fixation. He says, "The image of the retina ought to have a determined position if a perspective illusion is to appear; but the form of this illusion is entirely dependent on motion and direction." Some hypotheses interweave the known facts of the nervous system with psychological facts but some of these are examples of a common anomaly in theorization, for facts plus facts do not necessarily result in a correct theory. That is, two sets of facts interwoven do not necessarily yield an explanation which is correct.

VI

THE INFLUENCE OF ANGLES

As previously stated, no satisfactory classification of visual illusions exists, but in order to cover the subject, divisions are necessary. For this reason the reader is introduced in this chapter to the effects attending the presence of angles. By no means does it follow that this group represents another type, for it really includes many illusions of several types. The reason for this grouping is that angles play an important part, directly or indirectly, in the production of illusions. For a long time many geometrical illusions were accounted for by "overestimation" or "underestimation" of angles, but this view has often been found to be inadequate. However, it cannot be denied that many illusions are due at least to the presence of angles.

Apparently Zoellner was the first to describe an illusion which is illustrated in simple form in Fig. 29 and more elaborately in Figs. 37 to 40. The two figures at the right of Fig. 29 were drawn for another purpose and are not designed favorably for the effect, although it may be detected when the figure is held at a distance. Zoellner accidentally noticed the illusion on a pattern designed for a print for dress-goods. The illusion is but slightly noticeable in Fig. 29, but by multiplying the number of lines (and angles) the long parallel lines appear to diverge in the direction that the crossing lines converge. Zoellner studied the case thoroughly and established various facts. He found that the illusion is greatest when the long parallel lines are inclined about 45 degrees to the horizontal. This may be accomplished for Fig. 37, by turning the page (held in a vertical plane) through an angle of 45 degrees from normal. The illusion vanishes when held too far from the eye to distinguish the short crossing lines, and its strength varies with the inclination of the oblique lines to the main parallels. The most effective angle between the short crossing lines and the main parallels appears to be approximately 30 degrees. In Fig. 37 there are two illusions of direction. The parallel vertical strips appear unparallel and the right and left portions of the oblique cross-lines appear to be shifted vertically. It is interesting to note that steady fixation diminishes and even destroys the illusion.

The maximum effectiveness of the illusion, when the figure is held so that the main parallel lines are at an inclination of about 45 degrees to the horizontal was accounted for by Zoellner as the result of less visual experience in oblique directions. He insisted that it takes less time and is easier to infer divergence or convergence than parallelism. This explanation appears to be disproved by a figure in which slightly divergent lines are used instead of parallel ones. Owing to the effect of the oblique crossing lines, the diverging lines may be made to appear parallel. Furthermore it is difficult to attach much importance to Zoellner's explanation because the illusion is visible under the extremely brief illumination provided by one electric spark. Of course, the duration of the physiological reaction is doubtless greater than that of the spark, but at best the time is very short. Hering explained the Zoellner illusion as due to the curvature of the retina, and the resulting difference in the retinal images, and held that acute angles appear relatively too large and obtuse ones too small. The latter has been found to have limitations in the explanation of certain illusions.

This Zoellner illusion is very striking and may be constructed in a variety of forms. In Fig. 37 the effect is quite apparent and it is interesting to view the figure at various angles. For example, hold the figure so that the broad parallel lines are vertical. The illusion is very pronounced in this position; however, on tilting the page backward the illusion finally disappears. In Fig. 38 the short oblique lines do not cross the long parallel lines and to make the illusion more striking, the obliquity of the short lines is reversed at the middle of the long parallel lines. Variations of this figure are presented in Figs. 39 and 40. In this case by steady fixation the perspective effect is increased but there is a tendency for the parallel lines to appear more nearly truly parallel than when the point of sight is permitted to roam over the figures.

Many investigations of the Zoellner illusion are recorded in the literature. From these it is obvious that the result is due to the additive effects of many simple illusions of angle. In order to give an idea of the manner in which such an illusion may be built up the reasoning of Jastrow[1] will be presented in condensed form. When two straight lines such as _A_ and _B_ in Fig. 41 are separated by a space it is usually possible to connect the two mentally and to determine whether or not, if connected, they would lie on a straight line. However, if another line is connected to one, thus forming an angle as _C_ does with _A_, the lines which appeared to be continuous (as _A_ and _B_ originally) no longer appear so. The converse is also true, for lines which are not in the same straight line may be made to appear to be by the addition of another line forming a proper angle. All these variations cannot be shown in a single figure, but the reader will find it interesting to draw them. Furthermore, the letters used on the diagram in order to make the description clearer may be confusing and these can be eliminated by redrawing the figure. In Fig. 41 the obtuse angle _AC_ tends to tilt _A_ downward, so apparently if _A_ were prolonged it would fall below _B_. Similarly, _C_ appears to fall to the right of _D_.

This illusion apparently is due to the presence of the angle and the effect is produced by the presence of right and acute angles to a less degree. The illusion decreases or increases in general as the angle decreases or increases respectively.

Although it is not safe to present simple statements in a field so complex as that of visual illusion where explanations are still controversial, it is perhaps possible to generalize as Jastrow did in the foregoing case as follows: If the direction of an angle is that of the line bisecting it and pointing toward the apex, the direction of the sides of an angle will apparently be deviated toward the direction of the angle. The deviation apparently is greater with obtuse than with acute angles, and when obtuse and acute angles are so placed in a figure as to give rise to opposite deviations, the greater angle will be the dominant influence.

Although the illusion in such simple cases as Fig. 41 is slight, it is quite noticeable. The effect of the addition of many of these slight individual influences is obvious in accompanying figures of greater complexity. These individual effects can be so multiplied and combined that many illusory figures may be devised.

In Fig. 42 the oblique lines are added to both horizontal lines in such a manner that _A_ is tilted downward at the angle and _B_ is tilted upward at the angle (the letters corresponding to similar lines in Fig. 41). In this manner they appear to be deviated considerably out of their true straight line. If the reader will draw a straight line nearly parallel to _D_ in Fig. 41 and to the right, he will find it helpful. This line should be drawn to appear to be a continuation of _C_ when the page is held so _D_ is approximately horizontal. This is a simple and effective means of testing the magnitude of the illusion, for it is measured by the degree of apparent deviation between _D_ and the line drawn adjacent to it, which the eye will tolerate. Another method of obtaining such a measurement is to begin with only the angle and to draw the apparent continuation of one of its lines with a space intervening. This deviation from the true continuation may then be readily determined.

A more complex case is found in Fig. 43 where the effect of an obtuse angle _ACD_ is to make the continuation of _AB_ apparently fall below _FG_ and the effect of the acute angle is the reverse. However, the net result is that due to the preponderance of the effect of the larger angle over that of the smaller. The line _EC_ adds nothing, for it merely introduces two angles which reinforce those above _AB_. The line _BC_ may be omitted or covered without appreciably affecting the illusion.

In Fig. 44 two obtuse angles are arranged so that their effects are additive, with the result that the horizontal lines apparently deviate maximally for such a simple case. Thus it is seen that the tendency of the sides of an angle to be apparently deviated toward the direction of the angle may result in an apparent divergence from parallelism as well as in making continuous lines appear discontinuous. The illusion in Fig. 44 may be strengthened by adding more lines parallel to the oblique lines. This is demonstrated in Fig. 38 and in other illustrations. In this manner striking illusions are built up.