FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Susceptibility to Size Visual Illusions in a Non-Primate Mam...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2020; 10(9); 1673; doi: 10.3390/ani10091673

Susceptibility to Size Visual Illusions in a Non-Primate Mammal (Equus caballus).

Abstract: The perception of different size illusions is believed to be determined by size-scaling mechanisms that lead individuals to extrapolate inappropriate 3D information from 2D stimuli. The Muller-Lyer illusion represents one of the most investigated size illusions. Studies on non-human primates showed a human-like perception of this illusory pattern. To date, it is not clear whether non-primate mammals experience a similar illusory effect. Here, we investigated whether horses perceive the Muller-Lyer illusion by using their spontaneous preference for the larger portion of carrot. In control trials, we presented horses with two carrot sticks of different sizes, and in test trials, carrot sticks of identical size were shown to the subjects together with arrowheads made of plastic material and arranged in a way meant to elicit the Müller-Lyer illusion in human observers. In control trials, horses significantly discriminated between the smaller and larger carrot stick. When presented with the illusion, they showed a significant preference for the carrot that humans perceive as longer. Further control trials excluded the possibility that their choices were based on the total size of the carrot stick and the arrowheads together. The susceptibility of horses to this illusion indicates that the perceptual mechanisms underlying size estimation in perissodactyla might be similar to those of primates, notwithstanding the considerable evolutionary divergence in the visual systems of these two mammalian groups.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-09-17 PubMed ID: 32957449PubMed Central: PMC7552233DOI: 10.3390/ani10091673Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study explores whether non-primate mammals, specifically horses, are susceptible to visual size illusion, like the Muller-Lyer illusion, similar to human beings and non-human primates. The research found that horses, when given an option to choose from two carrot pieces manipulated to look different in size using typical Muller-Lyer illusion techniques, did choose the one that appeared larger, showing susceptibility to size estimation illusions similar to primates.

Objective and Methodology of the Study

  • The main objective of the study is to understand if horses can perceive visual illusions, specifically the Muller-Lyer illusion.
  • The Muller-Lyer illusion was chosen because it is one of the most investigated size illusions and generates the perception of unequal sizes using the same size elements.
  • To test this perception, horses were presented with two carrots of different sizes (control trial) and two carrots of the same size manipulated with arrow heads to elicit the illusion of different sizes (test trials).
  • The horse’s choice of a carrot in the test trials provided insight into their perception and susceptibility to the visual illusion.

Findings of the Study

  • In control trials, horses significantly discriminated between the smaller and larger carrot stick, indicating their ability to differentiate between different sizes.
  • In the test trials, horses showed a significant preference for the carrot stick which appeared longer due to the Muller-Lyer illusion.
  • Further control trials ruled out the possibility that the horses’ choices were based on the total size of the carrot stick and the attached arrowheads.
  • This confirmed that horses, like humans and non-human primates, are susceptible to the Muller-Lyer illusion.

Implications of the Study

  • The results suggest that the mechanisms underlying size estimation in horses might be similar to those in primates, despite significant evolutionary divergence in their visual systems.
  • This conclusion aids in our wider understanding of mammalian perception and cognition.
  • Moreover, this study opens up possibilities for further research on perceptual abilities in different animal species and how these abilities evolved.

Cite This Article

APA
Cappellato A, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Bisazza A, Dadda M, Agrillo C. (2020). Susceptibility to Size Visual Illusions in a Non-Primate Mammal (Equus caballus). Animals (Basel), 10(9), 1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091673

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 10
Issue: 9
PII: 1673

Researcher Affiliations

Cappellato, Anansi
  • Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Miletto Petrazzini, Maria Elena
  • Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Via Bassi 58, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Bisazza, Angelo
  • Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.
  • Padua Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, Via Orus 2, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Dadda, Marco
  • Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.
Agrillo, Christian
  • Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy.
  • Padua Neuroscience Center, University of Padova, Via Orus 2, 35131 Padova, Italy.

Grant Funding

  • STARS@unipd.it / Universitu00e0 degli Studi di Padova

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 40 references
  1. Eagleman DM. Visual illusions and neurobiology.. Nat Rev Neurosci 2001 Dec;2(12):920-6.
    doi: 10.1038/35104092pubmed: 11733799google scholar: lookup
  2. Feng LC, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC. Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?. Psychon Bull Rev 2017 Apr;24(2):262-276.
    doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1133-3pubmed: 27488557google scholar: lookup
  3. GREGORY RL. DISTORTION OF VISUAL SPACE AS INAPPROPRIATE CONSTANCY SCALING.. Nature 1963 Aug 17;199:678-80.
    doi: 10.1038/199678a0pubmed: 14074555google scholar: lookup
  4. Girgus JS, Coren S. Depth cues and constancy scaling in the horizontal-vertical illusion: the bisection error.. Can J Psychol 1975 Mar;29(1):59-65.
    doi: 10.1037/h0082021pubmed: 1139456google scholar: lookup
  5. Suganuma E, Pessoa VF, Monge-Fuentes V, Castro BM, Tavares MC. Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).. Behav Brain Res 2007 Aug 22;182(1):67-72.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.05.014pubmed: 17586063google scholar: lookup
  6. Tudusciuc O, Nieder A. Comparison of length judgments and the Müller-Lyer illusion in monkeys and humans.. Exp Brain Res 2010 Dec;207(3-4):221-31.
    doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2452-7pubmed: 20972775google scholar: lookup
  7. Keep B, Zulch HE, Wilkinson A. Truth is in the eye of the beholder: Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in dogs.. Learn Behav 2018 Dec;46(4):501-512.
    doi: 10.3758/s13420-018-0344-zpmc: PMC6276079pubmed: 30187301google scholar: lookup
  8. van Dierendonck M, Goodwin D. Social contact in horses: Implications for human–animal relationships.. 2005 pp. 65–81.
  9. Hanggi EB. The thinking horse: Cognition and perception reviewed.. AAEP Proc 2005;51:246–255.
  10. Murphy J, Hall C, Arkins S. What horses and humans see: A comparative review.. Int. J. Zool. 2009:721798.
    doi: 10.1155/2009/721798google scholar: lookup
  11. Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF, Waggoner TL. Color vision in horses (Equus caballus): deficiencies identified using a pseudoisochromatic plate test.. J Comp Psychol 2007 Feb;121(1):65-72.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.1.65pubmed: 17324076google scholar: lookup
  12. Timney B, Keil K. Local and global stereopsis in the horse.. Vision Res 1999 May;39(10):1861-7.
    doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00276-4pubmed: 10343877google scholar: lookup
  13. Timney B, Keil K. Visual acuity in the horse.. Vision Res 1992 Dec;32(12):2289-93.
    doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90092-Wpubmed: 1288005google scholar: lookup
  14. De Boyer Des Roches A, Richard-Yris MA, Henry S, Ezzaouïa M, Hausberger M. Laterality and emotions: visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) differs with objects' emotional value.. Physiol Behav 2008 Jun 9;94(3):487-90.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.03.002pubmed: 18455205google scholar: lookup
  15. Heffner RS, Heffner HE. Visual factors in sound localization in mammals.. J Comp Neurol 1992 Mar 15;317(3):219-32.
    doi: 10.1002/cne.903170302pubmed: 1577997google scholar: lookup
  16. Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF. Stimulus discrimination by horses under scotopic conditions.. Behav Processes 2009 Sep;82(1):45-50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.009pubmed: 19389464google scholar: lookup
  17. Hanggi EB. Interocular transfer of learning in horses (Equus caballus). J. Equin. Vet. Sci. 1999;19:518–524.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(99)80232-9google scholar: lookup
  18. Timney B, Keil K. Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues.. Perception 1996;25(9):1121-8.
    doi: 10.1068/p251121pubmed: 8983051google scholar: lookup
  19. Uller C, Lewis J. Horses (Equus caballus) select the greater of two quantities in small numerical contrasts.. Anim Cogn 2009 Sep;12(5):733-8.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0225-0pubmed: 19387706google scholar: lookup
  20. Petrazzini MEM. Trained Quantity Abilities in Horses (Equus caballus): A Preliminary Investigation.. Behav Sci (Basel) 2014 Sep;4(3):213-225.
    doi: 10.3390/bs4030213pmc: PMC4219264pubmed: 25379278google scholar: lookup
  21. Hanggi EB. Discrimination learning based on relative size concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003;83:201–213.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00136-9google scholar: lookup
  22. Tomonaga M. Fat Face Illusion, or Jastrow Illusion with Faces, in Humans but not in Chimpanzees.. Iperception 2015 Dec;6(6):2041669515622090.
    doi: 10.1177/2041669515622090pmc: PMC4975109pubmed: 27551367google scholar: lookup
  23. Parrish AE, Beran MJ. When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size.. Anim Cogn 2014 Mar;17(2):427-34.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0674-3pmc: PMC3865074pubmed: 23949698google scholar: lookup
  24. Miletto Petrazzini ME, Bisazza A, Agrillo C. Do domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) perceive the Delboeuf illusion?. Anim Cogn 2017 May;20(3):427-434.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1066-2pubmed: 27999956google scholar: lookup
  25. Santacà M, Regaiolli B, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Spiezio C, Agrillo C. Preliminary study to investigate the Delboeuf illusion in ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta): Methodological challenges.. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 2017;4:365–377.
    doi: 10.26451/abc.04.03.13.2017google scholar: lookup
  26. Agrillo C, Parrish AE, Beran MJ. Do primates see the solitaire illusion differently? A comparative assessment of humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).. J Comp Psychol 2014 Nov;128(4):402-13.
    doi: 10.1037/a0037499pubmed: 25133464google scholar: lookup
  27. Pepperberg IM, Vicinay J, Cavanagh P. Processing of the Müller-Lyer illusion by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus).. Perception 2008;37(5):765-81.
    doi: 10.1068/p5898pubmed: 18605149google scholar: lookup
  28. Sovrano VA, Albertazzi L, Rosa Salva O. The Ebbinghaus illusion in a fish (Xenotoca eiseni).. Anim Cogn 2015 Mar;18(2):533-42.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0821-5pubmed: 25413845google scholar: lookup
  29. van Niekerk HP. Ethological studies within the man-horse relationship.. J S Afr Vet Assoc 1980 Dec;51(4):237-8.
    pubmed: 7241494
  30. Dienes Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results.. Front Psychol 2014;5:781.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781pmc: PMC4114196pubmed: 25120503google scholar: lookup
  31. Warmuth V, Eriksson A, Bower MA, Barker G, Barrett E, Hanks BK, Li S, Lomitashvili D, Ochir-Goryaeva M, Sizonov GV, Soyonov V, Manica A. Reconstructing the origin and spread of horse domestication in the Eurasian steppe.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012 May 22;109(21):8202-6.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1111122109pmc: PMC3361400pubmed: 22566639google scholar: lookup
  32. Saslow CA. Understanding the perceptual world of horses.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;78:209–224.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00092-8google scholar: lookup
  33. Gregory RL. Perceptual illusions and brain models.. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1968 Dec 31;171(1024):279-96.
    pubmed: 4387405doi: 10.1098/rspb.1968.0071google scholar: lookup
  34. Barbet I, Fagot J. Control of the corridor illusion in baboons (Papio papio) by gradient and linear-perspective depth cues.. Perception 2007;36(3):391-402.
    doi: 10.1068/p5108pubmed: 17455754google scholar: lookup
  35. Byosiere SE, Feng LC, Rutter NJ, Woodhead JK, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC. Do dogs see the Ponzo illusion?. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 2017;4:396–412.
    doi: 10.26451/abc/.04.04.01.2017google scholar: lookup
  36. Byosiere SE, Feng LC, Wuister NJ, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC. Do dogs demonstrate susceptibility to a vertically presented Ponzo illusion?. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 2018;5:254–267.
    doi: 10.26451/abc.05.03.01.2018google scholar: lookup
  37. Nakamura N, Fujita K, Ushitani T, Miyata H. Perception of the standard and the reversed Müller-Lyer figures in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens).. J Comp Psychol 2006 Aug;120(3):252-61.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.252pubmed: 16893262google scholar: lookup
  38. Warden CJ, Baar J. The Müller-Lyer illusion in the ring dove, Turtur risorius.. J. Comp. Psych. 1929;9:275–292.
    doi: 10.1037/h0071052google scholar: lookup
  39. Santacà M, Agrillo C. Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in guppies.. Curr Zool 2020 Apr;66(2):205-213.
    doi: 10.1093/cz/zoz041pmc: PMC7233609pubmed: 32440279google scholar: lookup
  40. Fuss T, Bleckmann H, Schluessel V. The brain creates illusions not just for us: sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum) can "see the magic" as well.. Front Neural Circuits 2014;8:24.
    doi: 10.3389/fncir.2014.00024pmc: PMC3960505pubmed: 24688458google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Beran MJ, Parrish AE. Consistently Inconsistent Perceptual Illusions in Nonhuman Primates: The Importance of Individual Differences. Animals (Basel) 2022 Dec 21;13(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13010022pubmed: 36611632google scholar: lookup
  2. Santacà M, Agrillo C, Miletto Petrazzini ME. The Challenge of Illusory Perception of Animals: The Impact of Methodological Variability in Cross-Species Investigation. Animals (Basel) 2021 May 30;11(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061618pubmed: 34070792google scholar: lookup
  3. Díaz-Bertrana ML, Pitti L, Ramírez AS, Encinoso M, Fumero-Hernández M, Morales I, Arencibia A, Jaber JR. Computed Tomographic Assessment of Normal Ocular Dimensions and Densities in Cadaveric Horses (Equus ferus caballus). Animals (Basel) 2025 Oct 31;15(21).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15213165pubmed: 41227495google scholar: lookup
  4. Berardo C, Holland R, Schaffer A, Lopez Caicoya A, Liebal K, Valsecchi P, Amici F. Perception of optical illusions in ungulates: insights from goats, sheep, guanacos and llamas. Anim Cogn 2024 May 24;27(1):40.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-024-01878-2pubmed: 38789595google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.