Müller-Lyer illusion Experiment

Seerat Bhatia

24213564

Department of Psychology

Christ (Deemed to be University),NCR

Experimental Psychology-I (BPSY411-1)

Prof. Shreyasi

1
Purpose
To determine the extent of Muller-Lyer Illusion by the method of average error.
Müller-Lyer illusion 2

Hypothesis
The extent of illusion varies with the direction of movement (Ascending and Descending).

Introduction
Perception is a complex cognitive process whereby one recognizes and interprets

informational stimuli from the environment. It aids in the organization of responses to given

stimuli and gives meaning to one’s view of the world. The thing that complicates perception is

that it may not be objective; it is subjected to or moderated by factors such as context, previously

formed experiences, and expectations. These subjective factors may cause inaccuracies between

the perceived and the objectively existing-a fact that is very well presented through the concept

of optical illusions.

An illusion is a situation when the brain misinterprets any given sensory information and

perception is formed in such a way that does not correctly depict the real nature of the stimulus.

The study of illusions is important to understand perception because they reveal the ways in

which the brain interprets and organizes sensory information in manners that do not necessarily

correctly depict physical reality. The study of illusions helps in detailing the process by which

perception occurs and allows a better understanding of how cognitive and contextual influences

alter the sensory experience.

One of the most striking examples of perceptual distortion is the Müller-Lyer illusion.

First introduced by German psychologist Franz Carl Müller-Lyer in 1889, the optical illusion

consists of two horizontal lines of equal length, each of which appears unequal because arrow-

like figures are added at their ends. One line is flanked by outward-pointing fins (<—>), while

the other is flanked by inward-pointing fins (>—<). Most people perceive the line with the

outward-pointing fins as longer, although it is equal in length to the line with the inward-pointing

fins.
Müller-Lyer illusion 3

Since the Müller-Lyer illusion was discovered, a huge amount of research has emerged

within the field of visual perception, detailing several factors influencing the strength of this

illusion. These include:

• Stimulus Design: The angle of the arrowheads, the length of the lines, and their

orientation all affect the strength of the illusion.

• Environmental Conditions: Lighting, viewing distance, and overall environmental

context play a role in how the illusion is perceived.

• Cultural Background: Individuals from different cultural backgrounds may experience

the illusion differently due to varying exposure to geometric shapes and architectural

styles, which influence visual perception.

• Individual Differences: Age, visual acuity, and familiarity with visual illusions contribute

to individual variations in the perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion.

• Color and Contrast: The contrast between the lines and their background can

significantly affect the illusion’s strength. High contrast tends to intensify the illusion,

while lower contrast diminishes its effect.

• Contextual Factors: The presence of surrounding visual elements, such as additional lines

or shapes, can either enhance or reduce the illusion’s impact.

Various theories have been proposed as explanations for the Müller-Lyer illusion. One of

these, size constancy theory, maintains that perception of the object’s size remains constant over

changes in the size of the retinal image, while depth and distance cues do indeed cause a certain

constancy of perception. It shall discuss cue theory on how the visual system uses both

monocular and binocular cues to estimate the depth and distance, which could influence how the

lines are perceived. And lastly, the conflicting cues theory, wherein the illusion is a result of a

conflict between the actual line length with the overall figure length, misperceiving its true size.
Müller-Lyer illusion 4

Bednarek and Przedniczek (2021) investigated both cognitive and temperamental factors

affecting susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion; such a perspective was novel indeed, since

previous research focused almost exclusively on cognitive predictors of susceptibility. Their data

set included 170 participants aged between 20-33 years old and included cognitive measures

such as field dependent-independent cognitive style and the efficiency of attention networks-

alerting, orienting, and executive control. Of special importance is that for the first time,

temperamental factors were combined with visual illusions. This study adds depth to the

understanding of how both cognition and temperament add to the differences in perception of the

Müller-Lyer illusion, and it was published in Personality and Individual Differences.

Costa et al. (2023) explored the relationship between schizophrenia and susceptibility to

theMüller-Lyerillusion, consideringpatientswithmoderateandchronicconditions. Schizophrenic

patients have perceptual deficits that can often be elicited using visual illusion tasks. Their study

investigated performance on the Brentano version of the Müller-Lyer illusion in matched chronic

schizophrenic patients, first-degree relatives, and unrelated controls. Their findings indicated

increased sensitivity to the illusion in chronic schizophrenic patients independent of disease

duration, medication, or PANSS scores. The lack of a correlation of illusion susceptibility with

the PANSS scores most probably reflects the fact that the scale is not focused on perceptual

disturbances. These findings suggest, therefore, that susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion is

more related to stage rather than duration of illness in schizophrenia.

Methodology

Subject Details

Name: XYZ

Age: 18 years old

Gender: Female

Date: August 27, 2024

Place of Conduction: Psychology Lab
Müller-Lyer illusion 5

Background: Non-Psychology

Occupation/Role: Student

Primary Language: English

Materials Required

• The Muller-Lyer Illusion Board.

• Writing Materials.

Procedure

1. The subject is made to sit comfortably. The apparatus is placed at a distance of two feet

from the subject and the Muller-Lyer Illusion Board is adjusted to the eye level of the

subject. The subject is shown the standard and variable lines.

2. Ascending Series: Keep the variable line definitely shorter than the standard line in the

ascending series. Instruct the subject to slowly increase the length of the variable line, till

he/she feels it is equal to the standard line . When the subject stops moving, the length of

the variable line adjusted as equal to the standard line is noted down with the help of the

scale provided behind the apparatus, by the experimenter. Ten trials are given.

3. Descending Series: The length of the variable line is kept definitely longer than the

standard line in the descending series. The subject is instructed to slowly decrease the

length of the variable line till he/she feels it is equal to the standard line. The length of the

variable line adjusted as equal to the standard line is noted down with the help of the scale

behind the apparatus, by the experimenter. Ten trials are given.

Note:The ascending and descending trials are given alternately to eliminate practice
effect
Müller-Lyer illusion 6

Instructions

”The line between the two arrow heads in the standard line and its length remains

constant. The line between the two feather-heads is the variable line and its length can be

varied by manipulation.

In the Ascending series the variable line is held shorter than the standard line.

Slowly increase the length of the variable line till you fell it is equal to the standard line.

In the Descending series the variable line is held longer than the standard line.

Slowly decrease the length of the variable line till you fell it is equal to the standard line.”

Variables

Independent Variable: The direction which the subject varies the length of the variable

line.

Dependent Variables: The error committed by the subject.

Precautions

1. Ascending Series: The line between the two arrow heads is the standard line and its length

remains constant. The line between the two feather-heads is the variable line and its length

can be varied by manipulation. In this series the variable line is held shorter than the

standard line. Slowly increase the length of the variable line till you feel it is equal to the

standard

line.

2. Descending Series: Now the variable line is held longer than the standard. Decrease the

length of the variable line. Stop when you feel that the length of the variable line is equal

to the length of the standard line.

Experimental Controls:

1. The experimenter should make sure that the subject has understood the instructions.
Müller-Lyer illusion 7

2. The distance between the subject and the apparatus is kept constant.

3. The variable line should be held definitely longer in the descending series and shorter in

the ascending series.

4. The starting point of the variable line should vary from trial to trial to avoid habituation

5. The distance between the subject and the apparatus should be two feet.

Analysis of Data

1. In each trial, the subject’s judgement of the length of the variable line is noted by the

experimenter. This is the point of subjective equality (PSE).

2. The mean PSE is calculated for each series.

3. The constant error (CE) is calculated in each series.

CE (Asc.) = Mean PSE (Asc.) - Standard Line(16 cms).

CE (Des.) = Mean PSE (Des.) - Standard Line(16 cms).

4. Calculate the Mean CE

CE (Asc.) + CE (Des.)
Mean CE =
2

5. The movement Error is calculated using the formula

|Mean PSE(Des.) − Mean PSE(Asc.)|

2
Müller-Lyer illusion 8

Behavioural Report
The subject followed the instructions carefully; they set the lines with focus and

consistency. Even so, the Müller-Lyer illusion strongly biased her judgments in underestimation

for the ascending trials and overestimation for the descending ones.

Introspective Report

Results

Mean PSEAscending

Mean PSEDescending

CEAscending = 9.36 − 16 = −6.63(cm)

CEDescending = 12.7 − 16 = −3.73(cm)

Table 2.1

Ascending and Descending series observation

Trial Ascending Series(cm) Descending
Müller-Lyer illusion 9

Series(cm)
T1 9.9 12.5
T2 9.8 11.1
T3 8.2 12.3
T4 10.3 13.6
T5 9.9 13.4
T6 9.4 11.4
T7 9.1 12.8
T8 9.3 13.6
T9 8.7 13.7
T10 9 12.6
Table 2.2

Mean PSE and CE for Ascending and Descending series

Ascending Series(cm) Descending
Series(cm)
PSE 9.36 12.7
CE -6.64 -3.73
Fig 2.1: Comparison of Mean PSE and CE between Ascending and Descending Series
15
12. 7

10 9. 36
Value(cm)

−5 − 3. 73
− 6. 64
− 10
Ascending Series Descending Series
PS C
E E

Movement Error
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate the magnitude of the Müller-Lyer illusion using

the method of average error as a function of visual distortion in line length estimation. Originally
Müller-Lyer illusion 10

described by Franz Carl Müller-Lyer in 1889, the Müller-Lyer illusion consists of two lines of

equal length that seem unequal because of arrow-like fins at their ends. One has fins pointing

outward from it, the other has fins pointing inward. Although the lines are actually of equal

length, most people judge the line with outward-pointing fins as longer than the line with inward-

pointing fins. It was in this context that the present study attempted to quantify the amount of

perceptual distortion induced by this illusion by having a subject adjust a variable line to a

standard line in ascending and descending trials.

The subject who participated in this experiment was an 18-year-old female student with

no background in psychology, and she participated in the experiment conducted in the controlled

laboratory setting. The task of the subject during the experiment was to adjust the length of a

variable line to match a standard line that was of length 16 cm. In the ascending series, the

variable

linestartedbeingshorterthanthestandardandthesubjectincreaseditslengthuntilheperceiveditto be

equal to the standard. In the descending series, the variable line started longer than the standard

and the subject shortened it to what they believed was an equivalent size. These adjustments

were recorded over ten trials for each series to calculate the average point of subjective equality

(PSE) and constant error (CE).

The results indicated a significant difference in the subject’s perception between the

ascending and descending series. For the ascending series, the mean PSE was calculated to be

9.36 cm, while for the descending series, it was 12.7 cm. These results reveal that the subject

consistently underestimated the length of the variable line in the ascending series and

overestimated it in the descending series. The constant error for the ascending series was -6.64

cm, while for the descending series, it was -3.73 cm. The movement error, representing the

difference in the subject’s perception across the two series, was 1.71 cm.

These findings can be explained in terms of the perceptual distortions inherent in the

MüllerLyer illusion. The illusion arises through misleading visual suggestions-inward and

outwardpointing fins-which give depth cues that then serve to distort the perceived length of the

lines. The subject had been biased in the ascending series by the initial short length of the
Müller-Lyer illusion 11

variable line and overestimated the length to which it was extended to match the standard line.

Starting with a longer variable line in the descending series resulted in underestimation. This

effect can be explained by considering that the brain takes depth cues into consideration while

processing visual information-a sort of battle between the true and apparent lengths of the lines.

These results confirm earlier studies of the Müller-Lyer illusion concerning the heavy influence

of contextual visual factors, such as depth cues and surrounding elements, on perception.

The different results of the two series, taken together, underline that perceptual processes

depend not only on the physical properties of the stimuli but also on cognitive expectations and

biases. Misjudging by the subject of the ascending as well as descending trials may be caused by

such an interpretation of the brain by the arrow-like fins to indicate depth, though there was no

length difference between those lines. The illusion exploits the natural tendency of the brain to

maintain size constancy and results in misjudging the true lengths of the lines. The current study

again supports the notion that perception is not a mirror-image passive reflection of real-life

events but rather it is altered and at times distorted by cognitive processes while it interprets

sensory input.

To substantiate our findings, we have examined a selection of research papers that

explore the phenomenon behind Muller-Lyer illusion. These studies offer additional evidence and

context, reinforcing the validity of our results and demonstrating how similar effects have been

observed in previous research. Tailor et al. (2023) explored whether autistic traits influence

susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion, and whether different presentation methods alter the

degree of bias. Thirty neurotypical adults completed the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and

Systemizing Quotient (SQ) questionnaires, and four size estimation tasks:. Indeed, when the ML

figures were presented together, the illusory bias was far greater. A conclusion that may be drawn

from the experiment is that higher autistic traits could reduce the susceptibility to the ML illusion

in figure adjustment tasks.

This study by Bunce et al. (2021) investigated how the Müller-Lyer illusion may affect

perceived interpersonal distance within social scenes. Interpersonal distance is considered one of

the important proxemic cues, enabling observers to infer certain social interactions and
Müller-Lyer illusion 12

relationships between people. The outcome showed that participants’ estimates of the distance

between two points were indeed distorted by the illusion: distances appeared either compressed

or expanded as a function of whether face pairs fell inside or outside the judged interval. Of

course, the interesting thing is that such a bias did not depend on the direction of the faces. These

findings present insights into how the human visual system encodes interpersonal distance and

contribute to the understanding of the effects of the Müller-Lyer illusion.

Conclusion
The Müller-Lyer illusion significantly impacted the subject’s line length perception, as

indicated by consistent errors in the ascending and descending series. Although the lines were

objectively equal, this did not deter the illusion from warping judgment to one of

underestimation for the ascending trial and overestimation for the descending one. This

experiment serves to reveal how powerfully contextual visual cues can trick perception in a

demonstration of how easily the brain can be deceived on even the simple tasks by depth and size

cues that change our perception

of reality.

References
• Bednarek, H., & Przedniczek, M. (2021b). Müller-Lyer illusion: Cognitive style,

attentional and temperamental determinants data. Data in Brief, 36, 107033.

https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.dib.2021.107033

• Bunce, C., Gray, K. L. H., & Cook, R. (2021b). The perception of interpersonal distance

is distorted by the Müller-Lyer illusion. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.

1038/s41598-020-80073-y
Müller-Lyer illusion 13

• Costa, A. L. L., Barros, M., Mortari, M. R., Caixeta, F. V., & Maior, R. S. (2023d).

Stagedependent sensitivity to Müller-Lyer visual illusion in schizophrenia patients.

Behavioural Brain Research, 438, 114173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2022.114173

• Tailor, G., Telles-Langdon, D. M., & Glazebrook, C. M. (2023b). Müller-Lyer Illusion

susceptibility is conditionally predicted by autistic trait expression. Experimental Brain

Research, 242(2), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-023-06756-w