PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 9, 2025Perception0 citationsOpen Access

Global–local processing and the Ebbinghaus illusion: Group and individual differences in young and older adults

View Full Paper
HCHaiwen ChenADAnne M. Aimola Davies

Key Points

  • This research examines how global-local processing and age impact susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion.
  • Participants completed the Navon hierarchical-figures task to measure processing bias.
  • The Ebbinghaus illusion task was used to assess susceptibility to the illusion.
  • 145 participants were involved, including 87 young and 58 older adults.
  • Older participants showed worse performance on global processing compared to young participants.
  • No age-group differences were found in susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion.
  • Longer inspection times correlated with reduced susceptibility to the illusion.

Abstract

The Ebbinghaus illusion is a size illusion, in which a central circle appears larger or smaller depending on the size of surrounding circles. This illusion is widely used to study group-level differences in attentional processing, with the proposal that a local-processing bias reduces susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. One hundred and forty-five participants (87 young; 58 older) were included in the analyses. Participants completed the Navon hierarchical-figures task, to measure the global–local processing bias, and the Ebbinghaus illusion task, to measure susceptibility to the illusion. First, we investigated whether a strong local-processing bias reduced susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. Our findings did not support this proposal. At the group level, older participants demonstrated worse performance for global processing compared to young participants, but there were no age-group differences in susceptibility to the illusion. At the individual level, the young and older participants with the stronger local-processing bias were the participants with greater susceptibility to the illusion. Second, we investigated whether longer inspection times during the Ebbinghaus illusion task reduced susceptibility to the illusion. Our findings did support this proposal. At the group level, there were no age-group differences in either inspection time or susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. At the individual level, we replicated previous findings—the participants with the longer inspection times were the participants with the least susceptibility to the illusion. We discuss alternative cognitive mechanisms that may account for the Ebbinghaus illusion and their relevance to age-related changes and individual differences in visual attention.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69401d732d562116f28f9406https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066251395949
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A FIELD THEORY OF VISUAL ILLUSIONS1970 · 32 citations
  2. 2Enhanced diagnostic accuracy for neurocognitive disorders: a revised cut-off approach for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment2020 · 153 citations
  3. 3Susceptibility to Illusions and Performance on Visuospatial Tasks in Individuals with Autism2001 · 206 citations
  4. 4Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables.1995 · 2,797 citations
  5. 5Age Changes in Response to Visual Illusions from Middle to Old Age1971 · 5 citations