Illusion and example
|
Study
|
Method
|
Summary of group differences in susceptibility
|
---|
Ebbinghaus (or Titchener circles)
|
Happé [7]
|
Same/different
|
AUT < CONa,b
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT = CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Same/different
|
AUT = CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [12]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT ≈ CONc
|
Schwarzkopf et al. [16]
|
Forced choice
|
AUT = CON
|
Müller-Lyer
|
Happé [7]
|
Same/different
|
AUT = CONa,b
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT > CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Same/different
|
AUT = CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [12]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT = CON
|
Ishida et al. [13]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT = CON
|
Ponzo
|
Happé [7]
|
Same/different
|
AUT < CONa,b
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT = CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Same/different
|
AUT = CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [12]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT = CON
|
Ishida et al. [13]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT < CON
|
Illusory (Kanisza) figures
|
Happé [7]
|
“How many triangles?”
|
AUT < CONa
|
Milne and Scope [15]
|
Forced choice
|
AUT = CON
|
Poggendorff
|
Happé [7]
|
“Which line joins up with which?”
|
AUT < CONa,b
|
Hering
|
Happé [7]
|
“Are lines straight or curvy?”
|
AUT < CONa,b
|
Horizontal-vertical (or Hat)
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT < CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [10]
|
Same/different
|
AUT = CON
|
Ropar and Mitchell [12]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT < CON
|
Shepard’s tables
|
Mitchell et al. [14]
|
Method-of-adjustment
|
AUT < CON
|
-
AUT autism group, CON control group
-
aIllusion used by Hoy, Hatton and Hare [8] but individual results for each illusion not reported
-
bIllusion used by Bölte et al. [9] but individual results for each illusion not reported
-
cIndividuals with Asperger’s syndrome and typically developing children aged 11 were less susceptible to the illusion than those with autism, typically developing children aged 8 and children with moderate learning difficulties