Muller Lyer Illusion
Experiment Number - 1
Date of experiment - 16/08/2023
Experimenter - VM
Subject - SM
Introduction :
An illusion is an inaccurate perception of a stimulus. It is best described as a discrepancy
between one’s perception of an object or event observed under different conditions (Reynolds,
2008). . These sensory distortions show how the brain processes information.
Illusions can be of different types-
1. Auditory illusions: When a person hears tones or sounds that are distorted or that are not
actually being made, they are said to be experiencing auditory illusions.
2. Optical illusions: They occur when an image is created in such a way that the brain
receives information that is misleading.
3. Tactile illusions: Illusions that trick the brain into detecting touch stimuli that are not
really present or not present in the way that the brain thinks they are (West, 2015)..
4. Smell and taste illusions: These are not as frequent as the others. In these illusions people
taste things differently than others do, more specifically when they are given conflicting
descriptions about the stimuli producing this taste. Similarly this can occur with smell as
well (Illusion, n.d.).
The Muller Lyer Illusion is one of the best known classical geometrical illusions. It was created
by a German Psychologist named Franz Carl Muller Lyer in 1889. This illusion consists of two
lines that appear to be of different lengths but are of the same lengths. Here the central aspect of
the image appears to be distorted in virtue of other aspects of the image. This illusion is based on
the Gestalt principles of convergence and divergence, that is, the lines at the sides seem to lead
the eye either inward or outward to create a false impression of length (West, 2017).
Review of literature:
Segall, Marshall H., et al. (1966) tested participants from different cultural backgrounds (United
States, Zambia, and the San Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert) on the Müller-Lyer illusion. Their
studies revealed that the illusion was not as strong or may even be absent in cultures with
limited exposure to right-angle carpentered environments.
Coren, Stanley, and Lawrence S. M. Bourassa (1970) investigated the role of retinal disparity in
the Müller-Lyer illusion. The illusion was created in three dimensions with the help of
stereograms and found that the illusion persisted even when retinal disparity was eliminated,
suggesting that factors beyond simple binocular cues contribute to the illusion.
Jenkins, Susan(1986) conducted a study that focused on how cultural exposure affected the
participant’s susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion. They found that Japanese participants,
who had less exposure to right-angle carpentered environments than American participants, were
less susceptible to the illusion.
Ganz, Larry, and Dan-Ulrich Eysel (1974) explored neural mechanisms underlying the Müller-
Lyer illusion using neurophysiological recordings from cat visual cortex cells. Their findings
showed that certain cells responded differently to lines with arrowheads and lines without,
implying a connection between the illusion and the processing of line terminations.
Ross, Michael, and David Stefanucci (2012): Ross and Stefanucci conducted a study to
investigate the role of contextual cues in the illusion. They discovered that introducing a
background with the same arrow-like configurations could either amplify or diminish the
illusion’s strength, depending on the specific context.
Consequences: There have been many suggested explanations of the Muller Lyer illusion but
the most often cited one is that of Richard Gregory. He claims that the two lines of the Müller-
Lyer illusion are “flat projections of typical views of objects lying in three dimensional space”
(Gregory, 1963, p. 678). In other words, the experience of the Müller-Lyer illusion is connected
to picture perception: the perception of three dimensional objects in two dimensional surfaces
(Nanay, 2009). According to Gregory(2015), size constancy allows us to perceive objects in a
stable way by taking distance into account so in the three-dimensional world, this principle
allows us to perceive a tall person as tall whether they are standing next to us or off in the
distance. When we apply this same principle to two-dimensional objects, errors can result.
Another explanation by R.H. Day says that this illusion occurs due to conflicting cues. Our
ability to perceive the length of the lines depends on the actual length of the line itself and the
overall length of the figure and since the total length of one figure is longer than the length of the
lines themselves, it causes the line with the outward-facing fins to be seen as longer (Vickers &
Smith, 1989).
Method:
1. Problem: to determine the extent of Muller Lyer illusion by the method of average error.
2. Objective: to find out the participant’s vulnerability to Muller Lyer illusion.
3. Plan: to assess the participants' vulnerability to Muller Lyer illusion by using Muller Lyer
experiment in PEBL.
Materials: Muller Lyer illusion experiment in PEBL and writing materials.
Variables:
Independent Variable - the direction in which the subject varies the length of the variable line.
Dependent Variable - the error committed by the subject.
Hypothesis:
Individual data - there will be a significant difference in participant illusion.
Grouped data - there will be a significant difference in individual illusion.
Participant information:
Sno. Initials Age Gender Education Previous
qualifications lab
experience
1. SK 18 F 1st year student None
2. YD 18 M 1st year student None
3. RK 18 F 1st year student None
4. PS 18 F 1st year student None
5. KA 18 F 1st year student None
6. SP 18 F 1st year student None
7. SR 18 F 1st year student None
8. MS 18 F 1st year student None
9. NB 18 F 1st year student None
10. VK 18 F 1st year student None
11. AM 18 F 1st year student None
12. AS 18 F 1st year student None
13. DA 18 M 1st year student None
14. AS 18 F 1st year student None
15. PK 18 F 1st year student None
16. DM 18 F 1st year student None
17. BK 18 F 1st year student None
18. MT 18 M 1st year student None
19. DS 18 F 1st year student None
20. KP 18 F 1st year student None
Description of tools:
This experiment uses a cross platform open source software program PEBL(Psychology
Experiment Building Language), created by Shane T. Mueller. It is a free psychology software
that allows us to create a wide range of experiments, either design our own or use ready-made
ones. It offers a simple programming language suitable for creating and conducting many
standard experiments. PEBL is designed in a way that it can be used on a variety of computing
platforms. The latest version, PEBL Version 2.1 has been downloaded for this experiment
(Mueller, 2014).
Procedure:
Once the participant was seated, rapport had been established. All information regarding the
subject were recorded and an explanation about the Muller Lyer illusion was introduced to the
participant. They were instructed to judge the length of the line on the left or the right side of the
central arrowhead. If the left side is longer than the right, the participant was informed to press
the ‘shift key’ placed on the left side of the keyboard on their computer system and if the right
side is longer then the participant has to press the ‘shift key’ on the right of the keyboard. The
participant went through 50 trials, 25 of which were for practice. Once the participant finishes all
trials, the data was downloaded from the PEBL response repository in an excel sheet.
Instructions:
The subject was instructed as follows for the experiment:
“This is a test which is named the Muller Lyer experiment, where you will see a horizontal line
with arrows and featherheads. You will see that there is an arrowhead in the center that divides
the line roughly into half and you are required to judge which side of the line is longer, to the left
or right of the central arrowhead where both the lines will be integrated into a single line. If you
feel that the right side is longer than the left, you have to press the shift key on the right side of
your computer keyboard. Similarly, if you feel the left is longer then press the left shift key.
Ethical considerations:
The participant was informed about all the rules and instructions of the test. Informed consent
was taken and the participation was completely voluntary. Once the participant was informed
about the brief, the procedure of the test and confidentiality was assured.
Analysis:
The data on the responses of the participant was downloaded from the repository of PEBL. The
average difference between the variable line and standard line was calculated by taking an
average of 25 actual trials. The more the difference, the higher the vulnerability.
Results:
Individual data-
Trial Difference Correlation
1 -50 0
2 -33 1
3 -48 0
4 -46 1
5 -35 1
6 -47 0
7 -41 1
8 -34 1
9 -44 0
10 -37 1
11 -23 1
12 -39 0
13 -23 1
14 -41 0
15 -26 1
16 -32 0
17 -17 1
18 -27 0
19 -12 1
20 -17 1
21 -28 0
22 -18 1
23 -30 0
24 -23 1
25 -28 0
Sno. Initials Value
1. SM -25.43
Grouped data-
Sno. Initials Value
1. SK -29.43
2. YD -19.79
3. RK -34.07
4. PS -47.29
5. KA -47.9
6. SP -35.56
7. SR -47.71
8. MS -36.93
9. NB -39.43
10. VK -43
11. AM -45.43
12. AS -42.43
13. DA -33.37
14. AB -34.46
15. PK -40.93
16. DM -38.29
17. BK -54.85
18. MT -34.7
19. DS -24.21
20. KP -54.14
Discussion: The Muller-Lyer illusion is explained on the basis of the central tendency effect
which refers to errors of overestimation and underestimation that occur whenever repeated
judgments of a series of stimuli are made (Pressey, 1967). Values above zero are considered as
overestimation and below zero are taken as underestimation. From the experiment it is inferred
that the subjects are highly vulnerable to underestimate.
Conclusion: The participant’s vulnerability to Muller Lyer illusion was assessed using the
Muller Lyer experiment on PEBL.
References
American Psychological Association(2009). APA concise dictionary of psychology.
Cherry, K(2020). Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/how-the-muller-lyer-
illusion-works-4111110
Colman, A. M. (2006). Oxford dictionary of psychology.
Howe, C.Q. & Purves, D(2005). The Müller-Lyer illusion explained by the statistics of
image-source relationships. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America.
Illusion. (n.d.). GoodTherapy. https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/illusion
Nanay, B. (2009). Shape constancy, not size constancy: A (partial) explanation for the
Müller-Lyer illusion. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science
Society, 31. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jc2d40m
Pressey, A. W. (1967). A Theory of the Muller-Lyer Illusion. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 25(2), 569–572. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1967.25.2.569
Reynolds, R.(1988). A psychological definition of illusion, Philosophical Psychology,
1:2, 217-223, https://doi.org/10.1080/09515088808572940
West, L. J.(2017). illusion. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/illusion
