Visual Illusions Depend On Visual Cortex Size

Research released today in Nature Neuroscience finds that we are are more likely to be tricked by a visual illusion if we have a smaller amount of brain real estate devoted to visual processing. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

We think when we see something, say a small red rosebud, our friend will see the same rosebud, same shape, same size. But this isn’t exactly the case. There’s a surprising amount of variability in how each of us perceives things.

Now some studies have shown that the differences are likely cultural: the Müller-Lyer visual illusion, which shows two lines of equal length where one is often perceived, at least by American undergrads, as longer than the other, is actually not an illusion at all for the San foragers of the Kalahari.

A recent study in Nature Neuroscience provides evidence that individual perceptual differences may not be so influenced by culture as by the size of our primary visual cortex.(This part of the brain, by the way, can differ in individual size by up to three times.)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

Scientists presented various visual illusions to subjects, like one where two equal circles are often perceived as being different sizes. Individuals with a smaller primary visual cortex perceived a much more pronounced visual illusion than those individuals with a larger visual cortex.

 

Notes one of the authors: “How much your brain tricks you depends on how much 'real estate' your brain has put aside for visual processing.

 

—Christie Nicholon

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe