2012Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooksRequires access

Illusions that We Should Have (but Don’t)

Nicola Bruno

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

Illusions have been much studied in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. In addition, they continue to intrigue and amuse scientists and laymen. But what exactly are “illusions”? What is their use in the study of perception? Why are we fascinated by illusions? In this chapter I attempt to provide a novel answer to these questions. I will start by considering two extreme views, attempts to understand illusions by categorization, and the common sense view that illusions are perceptual mistakes. Next, I will propose a definition of illusions as perceptual inconsistencies. While this definition is based on phenomenological analysis, I suggest that it also has psycho-physical implications. By studying the relationship between perceptual and stimulus inconsistency, we can learn a great deal about perception, not only about its intriguing inconsistencies that we call illusions, but also — and most importantly — about its adaptive function of providing us with a behaviorally useful representation of the external environment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Illusions have been much studied in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. In addition, they continue to intrigue and amuse scientists and laymen. But what exactly are “illusions”? What is their use in the study of perception? Why are we fascinated by illusions? In this chapter I attempt to provide a novel answer to these questions. I will start by considering two extreme views, attempts to understand illusions by categorization, and the common sense view that illusions are perceptual mistakes. Next, I will propose a definition of illusions as perceptual inconsistencies. While this definition is based on phenomenological analysis, I suggest that it also has psycho-physical implications. By studying the relationship between perceptual and stimulus inconsistency, we can learn a great deal about perception, not only about its intriguing inconsistencies that we call illusions, but also — and most importantly — about its adaptive function of providing us with a behaviorally useful representation of the external environment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Illusions have been much studied in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. In addition, they continue to intrigue and amuse scientists and laymen. But what exactly are “illusions”? What is their use in the study of perception? Why are we fascinated by illusions? In this chapter I attempt to provide a novel answer to these questions. I will start by considering two extreme views, attempts to understand illusions by categorization, and the common sense view that illusions are perceptual mistakes. Next, I will propose a definition of illusions as perceptual inconsistencies. While this definition is based on phenomenological analysis, I suggest that it also has psycho-physical implications. By studying the relationship between perceptual and stimulus inconsistency, we can learn a great deal about perception, not only about its intriguing inconsistencies that we call illusions, but also — and most importantly — about its adaptive function of providing us with a behaviorally useful representation of the external environment.

Key concepts: Illusion, Perception, Categorization, Psychology, Cognitive psychology, Optical illusion, Stimulus (psychology), Cognition

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Illusions that We Should Have (but Don’t) — Research Paper | ScholarLens