OSA's Digital Library

Journal of Optical Technology

Journal of Optical Technology


  • Vol. 78, Iss. 12 — Dec. 1, 2011
  • pp: 817–820

Using wavelet filtering of the input image to study the mechanisms that bring about the Müller–Lyer visual illusion

I. I. Shoshina, S. V. Pronin, and Yu. E. Shelepin  »View Author Affiliations

Journal of Optical Technology, Vol. 78, Issue 12, pp. 817-820 (2011)

View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (204 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Various images of the Müller–Lyer figures have been obtained by digital filtering. The filtered images contained a definite spatial-frequency spectrum, predominantly low, medium, or high frequencies. The filtering was carried out by convolution of the images with wavelets that are the difference of two Gaussoids with half-width differing by a factor of 2. The equalization threshold of the Müller–Lyer figures was measured by presenting images subjected to digital processing and without processing, thereby measuring the threshold for bringing about the illusion. The Müller–Lyer illusion was caused by all the stimuli, but it was reliably larger in response to the presentation of the image with a predominantly low-frequency component. The modelling of the Müller–Lyer illusion must take into account the spatial-frequency spectrum of the test image and the characteristics of the pass-band filtering in the spatial-frequency channels of not only the primary but also the higher divisions of the visual system, which construct the envelope based on the primary filtering of the image.

© 2011 OSA

Original Manuscript: August 8, 2011
Published: December 31, 2011

I. I. Shoshina, S. V. Pronin, and Yu. E. Shelepin, "Using wavelet filtering of the input image to study the mechanisms that bring about the Müller–Lyer visual illusion," J. Opt. Technol. 78, 817-820 (2011)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset


  1. R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: the Psychology of Seeing (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1997; Progress, Moscow, 1970).
  2. J. Predebon, “Length illusions in conventional and single-wing Müller–Lyer stimuli,” Percept. Psychophys. 62, 1086 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. A. W. Pressay and C. A. Pressay, “Attentive fields are related to focal and contextual features: A study of Müller–Lyer distortions,” Percept. Psychophys. 51, 423 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. M. J. Morgan, G. J. Hole, and A. Glennerster, “Biases and sensitivities in geometrical illusion,” Vision Res. 30, 1793 (1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. A. P. Ginsburg, J. W. Carl, M. Kabrisky, C. F. Hall, and R. A. Gill, “Psychological aspects of a model for the classification of visual image,” in Advances in Cybernetics and Systems, ed., J. Rose(Gordon and Breach, London, 1976), pp. 1289–1305.
  6. A. P. Ginsburg, “Specifying relevant spatial information for image evaluation and display design: An explanation of how we see certain objects,” Proc. Soc. Inf. Display 21, 219 (1980).
  7. A. P. Ginsburg, “Perceptual capabilities, ambiguities and artifacts in man and machine,” Proc. SPIE 283, 78 (1981).
  8. A. P. Ginsburg, “On a filter approach to understanding the perception of visual form,” in Recognition of Pattern and Form, ed., D. G. Albrecht(Springer, Berlin, 1982), pp. 175–192.
  9. A. P. Ginsburg, “Visual form perception based on biological filtering,” in Sensory Experience, Adaptation and Perception, eds., L. Spillmann and B. R. Wooten(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., 1984), pp. 53–72.
  10. A. P. Ginsburg and D. W. Evans, “Predicting visual illusions from filtered images based upon biological data,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 1443 (1979).
  11. A. N. Bulatov, A. V. Bertulis, A. Belyavichus, and N. Bulatova, “Illusions of length and their description on the basis of the centroid concept,” Sens. Sist. 23, No. 1, 3 (2009).
  12. V. Di Maio, “Perceptual versus cognitive processing in visual perception of geometrical figures: A short review,” Sistema Nervoso e Riabilitazione 1, 35 (2000).
  13. A. N. Bulatov, A. V. Bertulis, and L. I. Mitskene, “Quantitative studies of geometrical illusions,” Sens. Sist. 9, 79 (1995).
  14. V. V. Ognivov, G. I. Rozhkova, V. S. Tokareva, and V. A. Bastakov, “Mean value and variability of the Müller–Lyer illusion in comparison with visual estimation in children and adults,” Sens. Sist. 20, 288 (2006).
  15. M. Carrasco, J. G. Figueroa, and J. D. Willen, “A test of the spatial-frequency explanation of the Müller–Lyer illusion,” Perception 15, 553 (1986). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. A. Gutauskas, A. Bertulis, and A. Bulatov, “Shape recognition thresholds: Correlation with spatial frequency spectrum of the stimuli,” Perception 22, 99 (1993).
  17. V. Di Maio and P. Lansky, “The Müller–Lyer illusion in interpolated figures,” Percept. Mot. Skills 87, 499 (1998). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. B. C. Skottun, “Amplitude and phase in the Müller–Lyer illusion,” Perception 29, 201 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. C. Blakemore and F. W. Campbell, “On the existence of neurons in the human visual system selectivity sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images,” J. Physiol. (London) 203, 237 (1969).
  20. D. J. Tolhurst and I. D. Thompson, “On the variety of spatial-frequency selectivities shown by neurons in area 17 of the cat,” Proc. R. Soc. London 213, 183 (1982). [CrossRef]
  21. R. L. DeValois, D. G. Albrecht, and L. G. Thorell, “Spatial-frequency selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex,” Vision Res. 22, 545 (1982). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. C. E. Bredfeldt and D. L. Ringach, “Dynamics of spatial-frequency tuning in macaque V1,” J. Neurosci. 22, 1976 (2002). [PubMed]
  23. Yu. E. Shelepin, “Spatial-frequency responses of the receptor fields of the neurons of the lateral suprasylvian region,” Neĭrofiz. 14, 608 (1982).
  24. Yu. E. Shelepin, “Comparison of the topographic and spatial-frequency responses of the lateral suprasylvian and striated cortex of the cat,” Neĭrofiz. 16, 35 (1984).
  25. Yu. E. Shelepin, “Localization of the regions of the visual cortex of the cat that give an invariant answer as the image size varies,” Neĭrofiz. 5, 115 (1973).
  26. Yu. E. Shelepin, “Filtration properties of the receptor fields of the neurons of the visual cortex,” Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR 261, 1506 (1981).
  27. Yu. E. Shelepin, L. N. Kolesnikova, and Yu. I. Levkovich, Visible Contrastometry (Measuring the Spatial Transfer Functions of the Visual System) (Nauka, Leningrad, 1985).
  28. Yu. E. Shelepin, V. B. Makulov, N. N. Krasil’nikov, V. N. Chikhman, S. V. Pronin, V. F. Danilichev, and S. A. Koskin, “Iconics and methods of estimating the functional possibilities of the visual system,” Sens. Sist.319 (1998).
  29. Yu. E. Shelepin, V. N. Chikhman, and N. Foreman, “Analysis of the studies of the perception of fragmented images: integral perception and perception from local attributes,” Fiziolog. Zh. 94, 758 (2008).
  30. Yu. E. Shelepin and V. N. Chikhman, Local and Global Analysis in the Visual System, ed., V. A. Barabanshchikov(Inst. Psikhol. RAN, Moscow, 2009), pp. 310–335.
  31. C. R. Carlson, J. R. Moeller, and C. H. Anderson, “Visual illusions without low spatial frequencies,” Vision Res. 24, 1407 (1984). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited