Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of stimulus duration on visual illusions and simple reaction time

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Target detection is affected by stimulus intensity. For instance, participants respond faster to larger objects than to smaller objects. In order to compute an object’s size, the brain integrates contextual information, for example object distance. Accordingly, the perceived size of an object can be altered via depth cues which modulate perceived object distance. Recently, it has been demonstrated that reaction times are influenced by the perceived rather than by the retinal size of an object, thus indicating that manual responses are generated after the perceptual integration of distance and retinal size. However, the timing aspects of these integration processes to date remain largely unclear. Therefore, the present study investigated the influence of stimulus duration on size–distance integration by means of a simple reaction time paradigm and the well-known Ponzo illusion. In experiment 1, participants responded faster to perceptually longer lines within an illusion-inducing background, whereas no such effect was associated with a neutral background. Experiment 2 revealed that this effect depended on stimulus duration. Stimuli were reliably perceived even with the shortest durations. However, illusion-induced modulations of response times were not observed for stimulus durations shorter than 40 ms. The findings indicate that the integration of context and object information requires visual input to last for at least 40 ms. The data furthermore show that as long as the visual system has not enough time to integrate context and object information, size perception is formed on the basis of lower-level representations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold DH, Birt A, Wallis TSA (2008) Perceived size and spatial coding. J Neurosci 28:5954–5958

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon-Macé N, Macé MJ-M, Fabre-Thorpe M, Thorpe SJ (2005) The time course of visual processing: backward masking and natural scene categorisation. Vision Res 45:1459–1469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanz V, Tarr MJ, Bülthoff HH (1999) What object attributes determine canonical views? Perception 28:575–599

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bulatov A, Bertulis A (2005) Distracting effects in length matching. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars) 65:265–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell JM (1886) The influence of the intensity of the stimulus on the length of the reaction time. Brain 8:512–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren S, Girgus JS (1978) Seeing is deceiving: psychology of visual illusions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang F, Boyaci H, Kersten D, Murray SO (2008) Attention-dependent representation of a size illusion in human V1. Curr Biol 18:1707–1712

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski DA, Philbeck JW, Pothier S, Chichka D (2010) From the most fleeting of glimpses: on the time course for the extraction of distance information. Psychol Sci 21:1446–1453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IE (1967) Stimulus probability and simple reaction time. Nature 215:895–896

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RL (1963) Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature 199:678–680

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory RL (1997) Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 352:1121–1127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Konkle T, Oliva A (2011) Canonical visual size for real-world objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:23–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamme VAF, Roelfsema PR (2000) The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing. Trends Neurosci 23:571–579

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lamme VAF, Zipser K, Spekreijse H (2002) Masking interrupts figure-ground signals in V1. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1044–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz H, Brislin R, Perlmutter L, Hennessy R (1969) Ponzo perspective illusion as a manifestation of space perception. Science 166:1174–1176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (1991) Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller HJ, Busch A (2006) Visual search for size-defined target objects is modulated by the Ebbinghaus apparent-size illusion: facilitatory and inhibitory effects of the context objects. Perception 35:671–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray SO, Boyaci H, Kersten D (2006) The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 9:429–434

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Näätänen R (1972) Time uncertainty and occurence uncertainty of the stimulus in a simple reaction time task. Acta Psychol 36:492–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osaka N (1976) Reaction time as a function of peripheral retinal locus around fovea: effect of stimulus size. Percept Mot Skills 42:603–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E (1978) Time perception. In: Held R, Leibowitz HW, Teuber H-L (eds) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VIII. Springer, Berlin, pp 713–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E (1997) A hierarchical model of temporal perception. Trends Cogn Sci 1:56–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pöppel E (2009) Pre-semantically defined temporal windows for cognitive processing. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:1887–1896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner MI (1980) Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol 32:3–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey AW, Epp D (1992) Spatial attention in Ponzo-like patterns. Percept Psychophys 52:211–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prinzmetal W, Shimamura AP, Mikolinski M (2001) The Ponzo illusion and the perception of orientation. Percept Psychophys 63:99–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson LC, Kim M-S (1999) Effects of perceived space on spatial attention. Psychol Sci 10:76–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson AE, de Sa VR (2008) Brief presentations reveal the temporal dynamics of brightness induction and White’s illusion. Vision Res 48:2370–2381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ross LE, Ross SM (1980) Saccade latency and warning signals: stimulus onset, offset, and change as warning events. Percept Psychophys 27:251–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sperandio I, Savazzi S, Gregory RL, Marzi CA (2009) Visual reaction time and size constancy. Perception 38:1601–1609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sperandio I, Savazzi S, Marzi CA (2010) Is simple reaction time affected by visual illusions? Exp Brain Res 201:345–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki K, Imanaka K (2009) Relationships among visual awareness, reaction time, and lateralized readiness potential in a simple reaction time task under the backward masking paradigm. Percept Mot Skills 109:187–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tarr MJ (1995) Rotating objects to recognize them: a case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychon Bull Rev 2:55–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor MM, Creelman CD (1967) PEST: efficient estimates on probability functions. J Acoust Soc Am 41:782–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich R, Rinkenauer G, Miller J (1998) Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:915–928

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

RW is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, WE 4299/2-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Plewan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plewan, T., Weidner, R. & Fink, G.R. The influence of stimulus duration on visual illusions and simple reaction time. Exp Brain Res 223, 367–375 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3265-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3265-7

Keywords

Navigation