The Psychology of Sensory Illusions: When Our Senses Deceive Us

1. Introduction: The Enigmatic World of Sensory Illusions

The human perceptual system is a remarkable feat of biological engineering, constantly processing a deluge of information from the environment to construct our conscious experience of reality. Yet, this intricate system is not infallible. At times, our senses can mislead us, creating a fascinating mismatch between the physical world and our subjective perception of it. These instances of deception are known as sensory illusions.

Defining Sensory Illusions: When Perception Deceives Reality

A sensory illusion is formally defined as a misinterpretation of a correct, or veridical, sensory input.¹ This means that a real, external stimulus is present in the environment, but the way our brain processes and interprets the signals from our sensory organs results in a perception that does not accurately reflect the physical properties of that stimulus.³ This discrepancy is not a random error but often a systematic and predictable outcome of how our perceptual systems are structured and how they operate. It is this very conflict between perception and cognition—where what we see, hear, feel, taste, or smell does not align with what we believe to be objectively true—that makes illusions such powerful tools for understanding the mind.⁴ Illusions are not confined to a single sensory modality; they can occur in vision, audition, touch, olfaction, and gustation, suggesting that the underlying principles of perceptual processing and misinterpretation are general features of how our brains engage with sensory information across all channels.⁵

Distinguishing Illusions from Hallucinations

It is crucial to differentiate sensory illusions from another perceptual phenomenon: hallucinations. Hallucinations are defined as perceptions that occur in the absence of any corresponding external sensory input, whereas illusions are misinterpretations of sensory information that is genuinely present.¹ In essence, hallucinations involve experiencing something that does not physically exist in the environment, while illusions involve misinterpreting something that is real.² A common example illustrates this difference: mistaking a shadow for a person in a dimly lit room is an illusion because there is a real sensory input (the shadow) being misinterpreted. Conversely, seeing a person when there is nothing and no one present is a hallucination.² Hallucinations can sometimes be normal, such as those experienced during the transition between wakefulness and sleep (hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations), but they can also be indicative of more serious underlying conditions, including psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia or neurological conditions like dementia.² This distinction is fundamental for both theoretical understanding and clinical diagnostics, as it points to different underlying neural mechanisms and psychological states. The study of illusions primarily informs us about the mechanisms involved in interpreting existing sensory data. In contrast, research into hallucinations may shed more light on the brain’s capacity to generate sensory-like experiences internally, perhaps due to spontaneous neural activity, neurotransmitter imbalances, or other alterations in brain states. This differentiation has significant implications for how conditions characterized by these perceptual disturbances are approached and treated.

The Pervasiveness and Importance of Studying Illusions

Sensory illusions are not merely esoteric quirks of perception; they are pervasive and hold profound importance for cognitive science. While “everybody loves illusions” for their captivating and often amusing nature, their scientific value lies in the unique insights they offer into fundamental visual and other sensory processes.⁴ They are far more than “entertaining curiosities”; they serve as critical tools for understanding human cognitive processing, brain function, the mechanisms of perception, and even neurological conditions.⁷ The study of illusions allows scientists to “cast light onto cognitive processes (vision, attention, memory, creativity, consciousness, and perceptual development), onto logic and neural complexity, onto the structure of the phenomenal world”.⁸ Illusions are, in effect, “windows into how our visual system processes and interprets information”.⁷ The widespread public appeal of illusions, coexisting with their deep scientific utility, creates a valuable bridge between popular engagement with science and fundamental research. This popular fascination can be effectively leveraged for science communication, making complex psychological and neurological concepts more accessible and relatable to the general public, thereby fostering greater scientific literacy.

A central theme that emerges from the study of illusions is that perception is not a passive reception of stimuli from the environment. Instead, it is an active, constructive process involving memory, expectation, and other internal cognitive functions.⁷ Our brains actively interpret, predict, and sometimes dramatically reimagine the sensory input they receive.⁷ Illusions are prime demonstrations of this constructive activity, revealing the brain’s continuous effort to make sense of the world, often by “filling in the blanks” or making assumptions based on prior experience and inherent processing rules.⁷

2. The Nature and Classification of Sensory Illusions

Understanding the psychology of sensory illusions requires delving into their general characteristics and the principles that govern their occurrence. These phenomena are not random errors but systematic products of our perceptual machinery.

General Characteristics and Underlying Principles

Many sensory illusions can be understood as the aftereffects of sensory stimulation, or in some cases, overstimulation.¹² Our sensitivity to stimuli can be quantified by thresholds: the absolute threshold is the minimum intensity of a stimulus that can be detected, and the difference threshold (or just noticeable difference) is the smallest change in stimulus intensity that can be perceived. These thresholds are not fixed; they can fluctuate and act as “anchors” against which subsequent stimuli are judged. Sometimes, these fluctuating anchors can mislead our perception, causing identical stimuli to appear different if presented under varying conditions or in close succession.¹² This highlights that our perception is not static but is dynamically influenced by our recent sensory history.

Gestalt psychologists proposed the “fading trace” theory, which suggests that a physical trace of an original stimulus—in the form of temporarily excited nerve cells—persists in the brain even after the stimulus has ceased. This lingering trace can influence the perception and estimation of subsequent stimuli.¹² The strength of this aftereffect and the speed of its decay vary among individuals. For instance, individuals described as “field-dependent” (those who tend to perceive a stimulus field in its totality, influenced by context) often exhibit weaker aftereffect traces. Conversely, “field-independent” individuals (those who are more likely to consider a specific stimulus apart from its context through selective attention) tend to show stronger aftereffects.¹² This points to the role of neural persistence and individual differences in cognitive style in shaping susceptibility to certain illusions. The “fading trace” theory and the broader concept of sensory adaptation imply that our perceptual system is inherently biased by its immediate past. This suggests an evolutionary trade-off: while adaptation mechanisms like olfactory fatigue or brightness adaptation can prevent sensory overload and enhance our sensitivity to changes in the environment, they can also lead to systematic misperceptions when stimuli are presented under specific temporal or intensive conditions. Perception, therefore, is not merely a snapshot of the present stimulus but is dynamically shaped by the history of stimulation, resulting in a constantly shifting baseline that can, under particular circumstances, give rise to illusory experiences.

Beyond physiological factors, higher-level cognitive processes also play a significant role. Emotions, compelling associations formed through experience, and strong expectations are known to frequently cause illusional misperceptions in everyday life.¹² This underscores the influence of top-down processing—whereby existing knowledge, beliefs, and emotional states shape our interpretation of incoming sensory data—a theme central to understanding many types of illusions.

A Taxonomy: Optical, Sensory, and Perceptual Illusions

To better understand the diverse range of sensory illusions, various classification systems have been proposed. One influential taxonomy, put forth by Richard Gregory, categorizes illusions based on the locus where the discrepancy between reality and perception originates.⁵ This classification distinguishes between optical, sensory, and perceptual illusions:

1. Optical Illusions: These illusions occur when the light traveling from an object to the eye is bent or distorted by physical phenomena in the environment before it reaches the sensory organ. Examples include the apparent bending of a stick partially submerged in water (due to refraction of light as it passes from water to air), mirages (caused by refraction of light in layers of air with different temperatures), or images seen in mirrors (due to reflection).⁵ In these cases, the “error” is in the physical stimulus array itself, not in the biological processing by the eyes or brain.
2. Sensory Illusions: These illusions arise when the sense organs themselves (e.g., eyes, ears, skin receptors) are “upset” or transmit misleading information to the brain. This can be due to prolonged stimulation, over-stimulation, or unusual stimulation. Examples include visual after-images (seeing a negative image after staring at a bright light), the waterfall effect (perceiving stationary objects as moving upwards after watching a waterfall for some time), or perceiving flashes of light when pressure is applied to the eyeball.⁵ Here, the sense organ is functioning in a way that, under specific conditions, generates a signal that doesn’t correspond veridically to the external stimulus.
3. Perceptual Illusions: These are illusions that arise from the misinterpretation of sensory information by the brain, even when the sense organs are delivering relatively accurate information. The Necker cube, an ambiguous 2D line drawing that the brain interprets as a 3D cube flipping in depth, is a classic example.⁵ Perceptual illusions are not simply distortions of the retinal image but represent alternative, and sometimes incorrect, hypotheses or interpretations that the brain constructs based on the sensory data.

Gregory’s classification suggests a hierarchical model of potential points where misinterpretation can occur along the pathway from physical stimulus to conscious percept. This implies that to fully understand any given illusion, one must first attempt to determine at which stage—the physical medium, the sensory transduction at the organ, or the cognitive interpretation in the brain—the “misleading” process is primarily located. This distinction is crucial because it points towards different underlying mechanisms and requires different investigative tools and theoretical frameworks for explanation. For instance, optical illusions are explained by physics, sensory illusions by the physiology of the sense organs, and perceptual illusions by cognitive psychology and neuroscience focusing on brain processes.

3. A Journey Through the Senses: Types and Examples of Illusions

Sensory illusions manifest across all our senses, each offering unique insights into how that particular modality processes information and constructs reality. The brain’s default mode appears to be one of multisensory integration, where information from different channels is combined to form a coherent percept.¹² Illusions often arise at the “seams” of this integration process or when the interpretive rules of a single sense are challenged by specific stimuli.

Visual Illusions: Distortions of Sight

Visual illusions are the most widely studied and popularly known category. They often involve misperceptions of size, length, orientation, color, brightness, depth, or motion. Many visual illusions seem to exploit heuristics the brain has developed for interpreting complex three-dimensional (3D) scenes from the inherently ambiguous two-dimensional (2D) information projected onto the retinas. This suggests that these illusions are often byproducts of an otherwise adaptive system.

• Müller-Lyer Illusion: This classic illusion involves two lines of identical physical length, one with inward-pointing arrowheads (fins) and the other with outward-pointing fins. The line with outward-pointing fins is consistently perceived as longer.⁷ This illusion is thought to arise, in part, from the brain misapplying depth cues; the outward fins resemble the far corner of a room (appearing more distant and thus scaled up in size), while inward fins resemble the near corner of a building.⁷ Susceptibility can be influenced by factors like age and cultural background.¹⁵
• Ponzo Illusion: When two identical horizontal lines are placed between converging diagonal lines (like railway tracks receding into the distance), the upper line appears longer.¹⁵ This is attributed to the powerful monocular depth cue of linear perspective, which makes the brain interpret the upper line as being further away and therefore scales its perceived size up to maintain size constancy.¹⁶ Cultural exposure to environments with strong linear perspective cues influences susceptibility.²⁰
• Ebbinghaus Illusion (Titchener Circles): A central circle surrounded by smaller circles appears larger than an identical central circle surrounded by larger circles.⁶ This illusion demonstrates the impact of local context and relative size comparison on perceived size. Susceptibility varies with factors such as culture, gender, and even profession.¹⁵
• Necker Cube: This is an ambiguous line drawing of a cube that can be perceived in one of two different 3D orientations. Perception tends to spontaneously flip between these two interpretations without any change in the stimulus itself.⁵ It exemplifies how the brain attempts to impose a 3D structure onto a 2D image and how it deals with ambiguity by alternating between plausible interpretations.
• Lilac Chaser Illusion (Pac-Man Illusion): If one fixates on a central cross while a series of lilac-colored dots disappear sequentially around a circle, a green dot is often perceived chasing the disappearing lilac dots, and eventually, the lilac dots may disappear altogether.¹⁵ This illusion demonstrates phenomena like negative afterimages (the green dot is the afterimage of lilac/magenta) and motion induced by sequential changes, illustrating how the brain actively “fills in” and smooths out perceptual experiences to create continuity.
• Jastrow Illusion: Two identical curved segments are placed next to each other, one above the other. The lower segment typically appears larger than the upper one.¹⁵ The exact cause is debated but may relate to how the brain interprets the differing radii of the inner and outer curves.
• Brightness and Color Illusions:

• Simultaneous Contrast: The perceived brightness or color of an area is affected by the brightness or color of its surrounding area. For example, a gray patch will look lighter on a black background and darker on a white background.¹²
• Successive Contrast (Afterimages): Prolonged exposure to a specific color can lead to seeing its complementary color when looking away at a neutral surface (e.g., seeing green after staring at red).¹²
• Adelson’s Checker Shadow Illusion: A striking example of brightness constancy failure, where two squares of identical physical luminance appear dramatically different in brightness due to the perceived shadow cast over one of them.⁷ The brain interprets the square in the “shadow” as being intrinsically lighter.
• Other Notable Visual Illusions: These include metamorphopsias (distortions of shape), micropsia/macropsia (objects appearing smaller/larger), polyopia (seeing multiple images of a single object), palinopsia (visual perseveration of an image), achromatopsia (impaired color vision, sometimes illusory), the Pulfrich phenomenon (an object swinging in a plane appears to move in an elliptical path when one eye views it through a dark filter), and the spiral aftereffect (illusory expansion or contraction after viewing a rotating spiral).³

Auditory Illusions: Tricks of Hearing

Auditory illusions demonstrate that our perception of sound is also an active, interpretive process, not merely a passive registration of sound waves.

• McGurk Effect: This powerful cross-modal illusion occurs when visual information from a speaker’s lip movements conflicts with the auditory speech sound, leading to the perception of a third, different sound.⁶ For example, if the sound “ba” is played while the lips articulate “ga,” many people hear “da.” This shows how visual input can dominate or alter auditory perception, especially in speech, as the brain anticipates and integrates cues from multiple senses.²⁴
• Shepard Tone: This illusion creates the perception of a tone that seems to continually ascend or descend in pitch, yet never actually gets higher or lower.²⁴ It is constructed by layering several sine waves separated by octaves, with the amplitudes of the tones shifting such that as higher tones fade out, lower tones fade in, creating a seamless loop. The brain’s inability to fully assimilate this complex auditory information results in the illusory continuous glide.²⁴ It has been used in film scores to create tension.²⁴
• Phantom Words: When listening to ambiguous or repetitive sound sequences, individuals often report hearing distinct words or phrases that are not objectively present in the stimulus.²⁷ The specific words perceived are often influenced by the listener’s current thoughts, expectations, native language, or emotional state.²⁷ This illustrates the brain’s strong tendency to impose meaning and find familiar patterns even in noisy or meaningless auditory input.

Tactile Illusions: Deceptions of Touch

Tactile illusions reveal the brain’s construction of bodily awareness, spatial perception, and the interpretation of physical contact.

• Phantom Limb Sensation and Pain: Individuals who have had a limb amputated often continue to feel vivid sensations, including pain, as if the limb were still present.²⁹ This is a profound illusion thought to result from ongoing activity and reorganization in the somatosensory cortex areas that previously represented the missing limb.²⁹ Sensations can be kinetic (perceived movement), kinesthetic (perceived position or shape), or exteroceptive (perceived touch, temperature, itch).²⁹ Mirror therapy, where the patient watches the reflection of their intact limb moving, uses visual illusion to alleviate phantom limb pain by “tricking” the brain into perceiving the missing limb as present and functional.³⁰ The existence of phantom limbs strongly suggests that the brain maintains an active and persistent internal representation of the body, a “body schema” or “neuromatrix,” that can generate sensations even without continuous peripheral input. This has significant implications for understanding body image, the nature of pain (which is not always tied to peripheral injury), and for developing novel rehabilitation strategies.
• Cutaneous Rabbit Illusion (Sensory Saltation): If a series of taps are delivered to two distinct locations on the skin (e.g., wrist and elbow) in quick succession, the person often perceives a series of “hops” or taps at intervening points on the skin where no actual stimulation occurred.³¹ This illusion, which also has visual and auditory analogues, demonstrates how the brain can “fill in” missing information to create a perception of continuous movement from discrete stimuli.
• Aristotle’s Illusion: If one crosses two adjacent fingers (e.g., index and middle) and then touches a single small object (like a pen or a marble) with the crossed fingertips, it often feels as if one is touching two separate objects.³³ This occurs because the single object stimulates two skin surfaces (the outer sides of the fingertips) that are not normally touched simultaneously by a single object when the fingers are in their usual, uncrossed posture. The brain interprets this unusual pattern of stimulation based on prior experience, leading to the illusory perception of two objects.³³
• Phantom Motion Illusion: When two vibrotactile actuators are placed at different locations on the skin and stimulated appropriately, individuals can experience the sensation of a single vibrating point moving smoothly between the two actuators, even though no physical stimulus is moving.³¹ This illusion is perceived when the illusory travel distance is at least 20% of the physical separation between the actuators.³⁵
• Thermal Grill Illusion: Touching an interlaced grid of alternating warm and cool bars can produce a paradoxical and often painful sensation of burning heat, even though neither the warm nor the cool bars alone would cause pain.³² This illusion highlights the complex way temperature information is processed and integrated by the nervous system.

Olfactory Illusions: Misinterpretations of Smell

The sense of smell, or olfaction, is also subject to illusions, often involving adaptation, masking, or cross-modal influences.

• Olfactory Fatigue (Adaptation): Continuous exposure to an odor leads to a gradual decrease in its perceived intensity, eventually rendering it imperceptible.¹² This is why one might become unaware of a persistent smell in a room or one’s own body odor. This adaptation prevents the sensory system from being overwhelmed by constant stimuli.
• Masking: The presence of one odor can decrease sensitivity to another odor.¹² For example, a strong disinfectant might make it harder to detect other, fainter smells.
• Contextual Influences and Misattribution:

• The “olfactory illusion” of food localization refers to the common experience where the aromatic components of food, which are primarily sensed by olfactory receptors in the nasal cavity (retronasal olfaction), are perceived as originating from the mouth and contributing to “taste”.³⁷
• The presence of one aroma can influence the perception of another. For example, the aroma of mint gum chewed by someone nearby was reported to enhance the perception of a sub-threshold mint aroma in meatloaf being eaten.³⁸
• Visual cues can create olfactory illusions. Drilling red plastic was reported to smell of cherries, while black plastic smelled of licorice, due to a generic sweet smell from phthalates in the plastic being combined with the color cue.³⁸
• Parosmia vs. Phantosmia: It’s important to distinguish parosmia, an olfactory illusion where a present odor is perceived differently or distortedly (e.g., a flower smelling like chemicals), from phantosmia, which is an olfactory hallucination involving the perception of a smell when no odorant is present.³⁹

Gustatory Illusions: Illusions of Taste

Our perception of taste is heavily influenced by other senses, expectations, and the physical properties of what we consume, leading to various gustatory illusions. Flavor itself is a multisensory construct.

• Influence of Color: The color of food or drink can significantly alter its perceived taste.⁴⁰ For instance, a pink-colored drink may be rated as tasting sweeter than an identical clear drink.⁴¹ In a classic experiment, white wine dyed red with an odorless food coloring was described by wine tasters using terms typically associated with red wine.²⁶
• Influence of Smell (Flavor Perception): The sense of smell plays a dominant role in flavor perception. Much of what we call “taste” is actually aroma detected by the olfactory system.¹² Blocking the sense of smell (e.g., by holding one’s nose) dramatically reduces the richness and complexity of flavor.
• Influence of Texture: The texture of food can influence its perceived taste. For example, a foodstuff with a rough surface was rated as significantly more sour than an otherwise identical foodstuff with a smooth surface.⁴² Creamy textures are often associated with richness.⁴⁰
• Expectation-Based Illusions: Our preconceived beliefs and expectations about a food’s taste can shape our actual perception of it.⁴⁰ If we expect something to be sweet, we might perceive it as sweeter than it objectively is.

Cross-Modal Illusions: When Senses Collide

Cross-modal illusions occur when the input from one sensory modality influences or alters the perception in another sensory modality. These powerfully illustrate that the senses do not operate in isolation but are constantly interacting and integrating information.

• Flash-Beep Illusion: A single visual flash, when accompanied by multiple auditory beeps in close temporal proximity, is often perceived as multiple flashes.¹³ This is attributed to the auditory system having better temporal acuity than the visual system; the brain gives more weight to the more reliable temporal information from audition, especially if it assumes the sights and sounds originate from a common source.¹³
• Rubber Hand Illusion (RHI): This compelling illusion involves synchronous tactile stimulation (stroking) of a participant’s hidden real hand and a visible artificial (rubber) hand. This often leads to the participant experiencing the sensation of touch as originating from the rubber hand, feeling ownership over the rubber hand, and a proprioceptive drift, where the perceived location of their own hidden hand shifts towards the rubber hand.⁴³ The RHI is considered a three-way interaction between vision, touch, and proprioception, demonstrating the brain’s capacity to update its body representation based on congruent multisensory input.⁴³
• Visual-Tactile Weight Illusion (Size-Weight Illusion): Smaller objects can feel up to 50% heavier than larger objects of the same actual weight when lifted.⁵ Visual information about size creates an expectation about weight, which then influences the perceived effort and heaviness.

The prevalence of such cross-modal interactions suggests that the brain’s fundamental mode of operation involves integrating information from multiple senses to construct a unified and coherent representation of the world and our bodies within it. Illusions frequently emerge when these integrative processes are challenged by conflicting, ambiguous, or artificially correlated sensory inputs.

Table 1: Overview of Major Sensory Illusion Categories and Examples

Sensory Modality	Brief Description of Illusion Type(s)	Key Examples (with concise explanation)
Visual	Misperceptions of size, length, orientation, color, brightness, depth, or motion. Often arise from misapplication of 3D cues to 2D stimuli, contextual influences, or sensory adaptation.	Müller-Lyer Illusion: Lines with outward fins appear longer than identical lines with inward fins (misapplied depth cues). <br> Ebbinghaus Illusion: Central circle’s perceived size affected by surrounding circles (relative size contrast). <br> Adelson’s Checker Shadow: Identical shades appear different due to perceived shadow (brightness constancy failure). <br> Necker Cube: Ambiguous 2D drawing flips between 3D interpretations (bistable perception).
Auditory	Misperceptions of sound characteristics, localization, or the presence of sound. Often involve interactions with other senses or the brain’s pattern-seeking tendencies.	McGurk Effect: Visual lip movements alter perceived speech sound (vision influences audition). <br> Shepard Tone: Illusion of a continuously rising/falling pitch (brain’s failure to process complex audio). <br> Phantom Words: Hearing words in meaningless sound sequences (top-down interpretation).
Tactile	Misperceptions of touch, body position, movement, or temperature. Often involve unusual stimulation patterns, sensory adaptation, or conflicts between sensory inputs and body representation.	Phantom Limb: Sensation/pain in an amputated limb (cortical reorganization, persistent body map). <br> Aristotle’s Illusion: Crossed fingers touching one object feel two (unusual stimulation pattern). <br> Cutaneous Rabbit: Taps at two skin sites perceived as taps in between (sensory “filling-in”). <br> Thermal Grill: Alternating warm/cool bars feel painfully hot (paradoxical temperature perception).
Olfactory	Misperceptions of smell intensity, quality, or the presence of an odor. Often involve adaptation, masking, or cross-modal influences (e.g., from vision).	Olfactory Fatigue: Decreased sensitivity to a constant odor over time (sensory adaptation). <br> Masking: One odor reducing sensitivity to another. <br> Color-Induced Smell: Colored plastics with generic sweet smell perceived as specific fruit/candy smells (visual cues altering olfaction). <br> Parosmia: A present odor is perceived as distorted or different.
Gustatory	Misperceptions of taste qualities. Heavily influenced by other senses (smell, vision, texture) and expectations, leading to altered flavor perception.	Color-Influenced Taste: Color of food/drink alters perceived sweetness or flavor (e.g., pink drink tastes sweeter). <br> Texture-Influenced Taste: Rough texture enhances perceived sourness. <br> Expectation-Based Taste: Beliefs about a food influence its perceived taste.
Cross-Modal	Illusions where input from one sensory modality directly alters perception in another modality. Highlight the brain’s integrative nature.	Flash-Beep Illusion: Multiple beeps make a single flash appear as multiple flashes (auditory temporal dominance). <br> Rubber Hand Illusion: Synchronous visual-tactile input leads to ownership of a fake hand (vision-touch-proprioception integration). <br> Flavor Perception: Combination of taste, smell, texture, and appearance creating a unified percept (olfactory-gustatory-visual-tactile integration).

This table provides a structured overview, aiding in the consolidation and comparison of the diverse illusory phenomena discussed.

4. The Mind’s Architecture: Psychological Principles Underlying Sensory Illusions

The occurrence of sensory illusions is not arbitrary but stems from the fundamental ways our brains process information. Several key psychological principles help explain why these misperceptions arise, revealing the intricate architecture of the mind. These principles often interact, and illusions frequently emerge at the intersection of these processing strategies. The principles of Gestalt organization, perceptual constancy, and predictive processing are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they offer complementary perspectives on how predominantly top-down influences shape our perception. Gestalt principles describe what inherent organizational rules the brain applies. Perceptual constancy describes the outcome of achieving a stable perception despite varying sensory input. Predictive processing, a more encompassing framework, offers a mechanism for how these interpretations and constancies might be achieved through internally generated models and expectations that are continuously updated by sensory evidence.

The Interplay of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Processing

Perception is a dynamic interplay between two main types of processing: bottom-up and top-down.⁴⁵

• Bottom-up processing refers to the analysis of sensory information that begins with the sensory receptors and works up to the brain’s integration of sensory information. It is data-driven, meaning perceptions are built directly from the raw physical features of the stimulus.⁴⁵
• Top-down processing involves higher-level cognitive processes, such as prior knowledge, experiences, expectations, beliefs, emotions, and context, influencing the interpretation of sensory information.⁴⁵ It is conceptually-driven, meaning the brain uses existing mental frameworks to make sense of incoming data.

Illusions often arise from the interaction, and sometimes conflict, between these two streams of processing.⁴⁹ Top-down expectations can powerfully shape, and occasionally distort, the interpretation of bottom-up sensory signals. For example, ambiguous ink blots might initially be processed bottom-up as random shapes, but top-down processing, driven by our innate or learned propensity to see faces, can lead to the perception of a face within the randomness.⁴⁷ Similarly, the Stroop effect, where naming the ink color of a word is slower and more error-prone if the word itself is a conflicting color name (e.g., the word “RED” printed in green ink), demonstrates how highly automated top-down processing of word meaning interferes with the more demanding bottom-up task of identifying ink color.⁴⁷ The context in which a stimulus appears can also trigger top-down interpretations, as seen when an ambiguous shape is perceived as the letter “B” when surrounded by other letters, but as the number “13” when surrounded by numbers.⁴⁸

Gestalt Principles: The Whole is Different from the Sum of its Parts

Gestalt psychology, emerging in the early 20th century, emphasized that our perceptual systems tend to organize individual sensory elements into unified, meaningful wholes or “gestalts”.⁴⁵ The core tenet is that “the whole is different from (or greater than) the sum of its parts.” The brain applies a set of innate organizational principles to structure sensory input in the simplest, most stable, and most coherent way possible. Many illusions occur when these principles are exploited by specific stimulus configurations, leading to perceptions that deviate from objective reality. Key Gestalt principles include ⁴⁵:

• Figure-Ground: We tend to segment our visual field into a figure (the object of focus) and a ground (the background). Ambiguous illusions like Rubin’s vase (which can be seen as two faces or a vase) exploit this principle by having reversible figure-ground relationships.⁴⁹
• Similarity: Elements that share similar characteristics (e.g., color, shape, size, texture) are perceived as belonging together or forming a group.
• Proximity: Objects that are close to one another in space or time are perceived as grouped together.
• Continuity (or Good Continuation): We prefer to perceive smooth, continuous patterns rather than disconnected or abrupt ones. Our eyes tend to follow lines or curves along their smoothest path.
• Closure: We have a strong tendency to complete incomplete figures, mentally filling in gaps to perceive familiar shapes or objects. Illusory contours, as seen in the Kanizsa triangle where a white triangle is perceived despite no explicit lines defining its sides, are a direct result of this principle.⁴⁹
• Area: When two figures overlap, the smaller one is typically perceived as the figure and the larger one as the ground.⁵¹
• Symmetry: Symmetrical elements are often perceived as unified figures.

Perceptual Constancy: Stability in a Changing World and Its Failures in Illusions

Perceptual constancy refers to our remarkable ability to perceive objects as stable and unchanging in their properties (such as size, shape, color, and brightness) despite continuous variations in the sensory information they project to our sense organs.¹⁶ For example:

• Size Constancy: We perceive an object as having a constant size even when its distance from us changes, which alters the size of its image on our retina. A person walking away does not appear to shrink.
• Shape Constancy: We perceive an object as maintaining its shape even when our viewing angle changes, causing the shape of its retinal image to distort. A door is perceived as rectangular even when it appears trapezoidal as it opens.
• Color and Brightness Constancy: We perceive an object’s color and brightness as relatively constant even under different lighting conditions, which alter the wavelengths and intensity of light reflected from it. A red apple looks red in bright sunlight and in dimmer indoor light.

Perceptual constancies are crucial for navigating and interacting with a stable world. However, illusions often occur when the mechanisms underlying these constancies are “fooled” by misleading cues or atypical stimulus configurations.¹⁶ For instance, the Müller-Lyer and Ponzo illusions are thought to result, in part, from the misapplication of size constancy mechanisms due to misleading monocular depth cues (like linear perspective or textural gradients).¹⁶ The brain interprets these 2D drawings using rules developed for 3D environments, scaling up the perceived size of elements that appear “further away” based on these cues. The Moon illusion, where the moon appears much larger near the horizon than when overhead, is also partly explained by the brain’s use of depth cues and size comparison with terrestrial objects on the horizon.¹⁶ Brightness and color constancy illusions, like the checker shadow illusion, demonstrate how the brain attempts to discount perceived variations in illumination to maintain a stable perception of surface properties, but can be tricked by carefully constructed contexts.¹⁶

The Predictive Brain: Illusions as Insights into Predictive Processing

A highly influential contemporary framework for understanding perception is predictive processing (or predictive coding).²³ This theory posits that the brain is not a passive recipient of sensory information but an active prediction machine. It constantly generates hypotheses or predictions about the causes of sensory input based on its internal models of the world, which are shaped by prior experience and learning. Perception, in this view, is akin to a “controlled hallucination” ²³—it’s a construction of the brain that is continuously tested and updated by incoming sensory data.

The brain sends top-down predictions to lower sensory areas. These predictions are compared with the bottom-up sensory signals. Any mismatch between the prediction and the actual input generates a “prediction error” signal, which is then propagated up the cortical hierarchy to update and refine the internal models and future predictions.⁵³ The overarching goal of the brain, according to this theory, is to minimize prediction error over time, leading to a more accurate and adaptive model of the world.

Sensory illusions can be considered extreme cases where the percept is largely determined by strong prior expectations or beliefs, which may override or misinterpret the actual sensory data, especially when that data is ambiguous, incomplete, or noisy.⁵³

• In the Checker Shadow Illusion, the brain’s extensive experience with how shadows affect appearance leads it to predict that a surface in shadow must be intrinsically lighter to reflect the same amount of light as an unshaded surface. This strong prior overrides the bottom-up information that the two squares are physically identical in luminance.²³
• In ambiguous figures like the Rabbit-Duck Illusion, the brain’s current prediction (e.g., “it’s a rabbit”) determines what is perceived. The sensory input is consistent with multiple hypotheses, and the dominant prediction “wins” the perceptual interpretation.²³
• The differing perceptions of “The Dress” (blue/black vs. white/gold) are thought to arise from individuals’ brains making different implicit assumptions (predictions) about the lighting conditions under which the photograph was taken, based on their unique lifelong visual experiences (e.g., more exposure to natural daylight vs. artificial indoor light).²³

This framework suggests that illusions are not mere “errors” but are highly informative about the predictive models the brain employs. They reveal the powerful influence of prior beliefs and learned regularities on conscious perception. The fact that illusions can be explained by these fundamental processing principles (bottom-up/top-down interactions, Gestalt organization, constancy mechanisms, and predictive coding) implies that “illusory” perception is not a separate, faulty mode of brain operation. Rather, it is an outcome of the normal functioning of the perceptual system when it encounters specific, often atypical or cleverly designed, stimulus conditions. The “error” lies in the mismatch between the stimulus and the percept, not necessarily in the brain’s processing rules themselves, which are generally adaptive and optimized for typical environmental stimuli.

Table 2: Key Psychological Principles Underlying Sensory Illusions

Principle	Brief Description	Role in Illusion Formation	Example Illusion(s)
Bottom-Up Processing	Analysis starting from sensory receptors, building up to perception; data-driven.	Provides the raw sensory data that can be misinterpreted or overridden by top-down influences.	Initial registration of lines and angles in the Müller-Lyer illusion.
Top-Down Processing	Interpretation of sensory information based on prior knowledge, expectations, context, and goals; conceptually-driven.	Shapes, biases, or overrides bottom-up information, leading to percepts that align with expectations or schemas even if they don’t match reality.	Seeing a face in an ambiguous ink blot; Stroop effect; context determining if a shape is “B” or “13”.
Gestalt – Figure-Ground	Tendency to segment visual scenes into a figure (object of focus) and a background.	Ambiguous stimuli can lead to reversible figure-ground assignments, creating bistable perceptions.	Rubin’s Vase (faces/vase).
Gestalt – Proximity	Elements close together are perceived as grouped.	Can lead to illusory groupings or structures based on spacing.	Perceiving rows or columns in an array of dots based on closer spacing.
Gestalt – Similarity	Elements that look similar are perceived as grouped.	Can cause elements to be grouped incorrectly or form illusory patterns based on shared features.	Grouping dots of the same color into a shape, ignoring other dots.
Gestalt – Continuity	Preference for perceiving smooth, continuous patterns over abrupt changes.	Can lead to perceiving connections or paths that are implied but not explicitly present.	Seeing two intersecting lines as continuous rather than four separate segments meeting at a point.
Gestalt – Closure	Tendency to mentally fill in gaps to perceive complete, familiar objects.	Leads to the perception of illusory contours or shapes that are not physically drawn.	Kanizsa Triangle (seeing a complete triangle from Pac-Man like inducers).
Perceptual Constancy (e.g., Size, Shape, Brightness)	Ability to perceive objects as stable despite changes in sensory input (distance, viewing angle, lighting).	Misapplication of constancy mechanisms due to misleading cues (e.g., depth cues in 2D images) can lead to distortions of perceived size, shape, or brightness.	Müller-Lyer illusion (size constancy misapplied due to depth cues); Ponzo illusion; Moon illusion; Adelson’s Checker Shadow illusion (brightness constancy).
Predictive Processing (Priors & Prediction Error)	Brain actively predicts sensory input based on internal models and prior experience, updating models based on prediction errors.	Strong priors or ambiguous sensory data can lead to perceptions dominated by expectations, resulting in a mismatch with physical reality.	Checker Shadow illusion (prior about shadows overrides luminance data); Rabbit-Duck illusion (perception follows active prediction); “The Dress” (differing priors about illumination).

This table systematically organizes the core psychological theories explaining illusions, clarifying how each principle contributes to the experience of illusions by linking abstract theories to concrete examples.

5. Variability in Perception: Factors Influencing Illusion Susceptibility

While many sensory illusions are robust and experienced by a wide range of individuals, susceptibility to them is not uniform. A variety of factors, from immediate contextual cues and attentional states to long-term influences like age, cognitive style, cultural background, and clinical conditions, can modulate the strength and even the presence of an illusory experience. This variability underscores that sensory illusions are not merely low-level sensory phenomena but are deeply intertwined with higher-order cognitive processes and individual differences. This implies that illusions can serve as a powerful tool to study the interface between sensation, perception, and cognition.

The Impact of Prior Knowledge, Expectations, Context, and Attention

Top-down cognitive factors play a crucial role in shaping our perception of illusions.¹²

• Prior Knowledge and Expectations: What we already know and what we expect to perceive can significantly alter our experience. The Ames Room illusion, for example, relies heavily on our ingrained expectation that rooms are rectangular; this assumption leads to the bizarre perception of people changing size as they walk across the room.⁴⁹ If we expect a stimulus to behave in a certain way, we are more likely to perceive it in line with that expectation, even if it means experiencing an illusion.
• Context: The surrounding environment or the way stimuli are presented can dramatically change an illusory experience. The Ebbinghaus illusion, where the perceived size of a central circle is influenced by the size of surrounding circles, is a prime example of contextual influence on size perception.¹⁵ Spatial context is also critical for brightness illusions like Simultaneous Brightness Contrast (SBC) and illusory contour perception like the Kanizsa triangle. Interestingly, research suggests that SBC can persist even when the surrounding context is masked from conscious awareness, implying processing by low-level mechanisms. In contrast, the perception of Kanizsa contours appears to require conscious awareness of the inducing contextual elements, pointing to the involvement of higher-level inferential processes.⁵⁴ This distinction highlights that different illusions may rely on contextual processing at different levels of awareness.
• Attention: What we attend to can influence our susceptibility to illusions.⁴⁸ Selective attention allows us to prioritize certain information.⁴⁵ If attention is drawn towards or away from specific features of an illusory stimulus or its context, the strength of the illusion can be modulated. However, top-down projections from attention can also complicate research by broadcasting expected perceptual properties throughout the brain, making it difficult to isolate the precise neural locus where an illusion emerges.⁴

Individual Differences: Age, Cognitive Style, and Clinical Conditions

Perceptual systems are not universally fixed but appear to be plastic and shaped by developmental trajectories, environmental inputs, and neurological states. This challenges a purely “hardwired” view of perception and highlights the dynamic and individualized nature of how we experience the world, including illusions.

• Age: Susceptibility to various illusions changes across the lifespan.²² For instance, some studies suggest that susceptibility to the Müller-Lyer illusion may decrease with age from childhood.¹⁵ Conversely, susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion appears to increase between the ages of 3 and 8 years, though even 10-year-olds may be less susceptible than adults.²² In other domains, older adults might experience stronger vection (illusory self-motion) compared to younger adults.⁵⁷ These age-related differences likely reflect ongoing maturation and potential decline in various cognitive and perceptual processes.
• Cognitive Style: An individual’s characteristic way of processing information can impact their experience of illusions. For example, individuals classified as “field-dependent” (more influenced by contextual cues) tend to show weaker visual aftereffect traces compared to “field-independent” individuals.¹² Similarly, a person’s local versus global processing style (focusing on details versus the overall picture) has been linked to the magnitude of illusion perception.⁵⁶ Higher field dependence has also been associated with a faster onset of vection.⁵⁷
• Clinical Conditions: The perception of illusions can be altered in various neurological and psychiatric conditions. Studies have reported different patterns of susceptibility to illusions in individuals with schizophrenia or autism spectrum disorder.⁵⁶ In conditions like delirium, the raised perceptual threshold and heightened anxiety can lead to frequent misinterpretations of stimuli as illusions.⁵⁸ Affect illusions, where mood influences perception, can occur in bereavement or severe depression (e.g., a bereaved person momentarily “seeing” the deceased).⁵⁸ The profound tactile and proprioceptive illusion of phantom limb pain is a significant clinical issue for amputees.²⁹ Studying illusions in these populations can offer valuable insights into the specific perceptual and cognitive alterations associated with these conditions.

Cultural Influences on How We Perceive Illusions

One of the most fascinating areas of illusion research concerns the influence of culture on perception. Numerous studies have demonstrated that susceptibility to certain visual illusions varies systematically across different cultural groups.¹⁹

• Müller-Lyer Illusion: Classic research found that individuals from Western, industrialized societies (often described as living in “carpentered worlds” with many straight lines and right angles) tend to be more susceptible to the Müller-Lyer illusion than individuals from non-industrialized, non-carpentered environments, such as some hunter-gatherer societies.¹⁵ The “carpentered world hypothesis” suggests that exposure to environments rich in rectangular structures leads to the development of perceptual habits that make one prone to interpreting the Müller-Lyer figure in terms of 3D depth cues.¹⁸ However, this hypothesis is currently debated, with some recent comprehensive reviews and cross-species studies suggesting that the illusion may have more innate roots and that the original cross-cultural evidence had methodological weaknesses.⁵⁹
• Ponzo Illusion: Susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion also appears to be culturally modulated. Individuals from rural and non-Western regions are often less susceptible than those from urban environments with more exposure to linear perspective cues like roads and railway tracks.¹⁵
• Ebbinghaus Illusion: Cross-cultural studies have found differences in susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus illusion. For example, Japanese children have been found to be more susceptible than U.S.-American children, a difference that becomes more pronounced with age.²² Japanese students have also shown more context-dependent size perception in tasks related to this illusion compared to UK students.²⁰

These cultural differences are often attributed to culturally influenced attentional biases. For instance, individuals from East Asian cultures are often described as having more holistic and context-sensitive attentional styles (attending to the entire field and the relationships between objects), while individuals from Western cultures may exhibit more analytic and context-independent attentional styles (focusing on focal objects and their attributes).²⁰ Such ingrained ways of attending to and interpreting the visual world can shape basic perceptual processes and, consequently, susceptibility to illusions. These findings challenge the notion of universal perceptual mechanisms and emphasize the role of experience and environment in tuning our perceptual systems.

Table 3: Factors Influencing Susceptibility to Sensory Illusions

Factor	Description of Influence	Example Illusion(s) Affected	Relevant Supporting Information
Prior Knowledge & Expectations	Pre-existing beliefs and anticipation about stimuli shape their interpretation, often leading to perceptions consistent with these mental sets.	Ames Room (expectation of rectangular room), Rabbit-Duck (current prediction determines percept).	12
Context	The surrounding sensory information or environment in which a stimulus is presented can alter its perceived properties.	Ebbinghaus Illusion (surrounding circles affect perceived size of central circle), Simultaneous Brightness Contrast (background affects perceived brightness).	15
Attention	The focus of cognitive resources can modulate the strength or presence of an illusion. Selective attention can highlight or suppress features relevant to the illusion.	Inattentional blindness (not perceiving stimuli if attention is elsewhere), modulation of various visual illusions depending on attended features.	4
Age	Perceptual and cognitive development throughout the lifespan leads to changes in illusion susceptibility.	Müller-Lyer (susceptibility may decrease with age), Ebbinghaus (susceptibility may increase in childhood), Vection (older adults may experience stronger effects).	15
Cognitive Style	Individual habitual patterns of processing information (e.g., field dependence/independence, local/global processing) affect how illusions are experienced.	Visual aftereffects (stronger in field-independent individuals), Vection (faster onset with higher field dependence).	12
Clinical Conditions	Neurological or psychiatric conditions can alter baseline perceptual processing, leading to different patterns of illusion susceptibility or the emergence of illusion-like distortions.	Perceptual distortions in delirium or mood disorders, altered illusion perception in schizophrenia or autism, Phantom Limb Pain.	29
Culture	Learned environmental regularities (e.g., “carpentered world”) and culturally ingrained attentional styles (e.g., holistic vs. analytic) can shape susceptibility to certain illusions.	Müller-Lyer (carpentered world hypothesis), Ponzo (exposure to linear perspective), Ebbinghaus (holistic vs. analytic attention).	15

This table synthesizes the diverse factors that modulate how individuals experience illusions, providing a clear overview of these influences and linking them to specific illusions and supporting research.

6. The Significance of Studying Sensory Illusions: Windows into the Mind

The study of sensory illusions extends far beyond mere curiosity about perceptual quirks. These systematic discrepancies between objective reality and subjective experience serve as invaluable tools, offering profound insights into the fundamental workings of the human mind and brain. Their significance spans theoretical understanding of normal perception, the nature of cognitive biases, clinical applications, and a wide array of practical uses in technology and art.

Illuminating Normal Perceptual Processes and Brain Function

One of the primary reasons for studying illusions is that they illuminate the processes underlying normal, veridical perception.⁸ By examining how and why perception “fails” or is “tricked” in the context of an illusion, researchers can infer the rules, assumptions, and mechanisms that the brain employs during everyday accurate perception.⁷ Illusions effectively expose the “seams” in our brain’s construction of reality. They demonstrate that perception is not a passive recording of the external world but an active, constructive process.⁷ The brain constantly interprets sensory data, predicts future input, and fills in missing information based on prior knowledge and contextual cues.⁷ Illusions provide compelling evidence for this constructive nature, showing how our perceptual experience is generated rather than simply received. They allow scientists to dissect cognitive processes such as vision, attention, memory, and consciousness by creating situations where the subjective percept demonstrably differs from the physical stimulus.⁴

Understanding Cognitive Biases and the Subjective Construction of Reality

Sensory illusions share conceptual links with cognitive biases, which are systematic patterns of deviation from normative or rational judgment.⁶¹ Just as cognitive biases can lead individuals to create their own “subjective social reality” and make inaccurate judgments, sensory illusions demonstrate a similar construction of subjective perceptual reality that can diverge from objective physical measurements. The brain’s reliance on heuristics (mental shortcuts), prior assumptions, and contextual information, which underlies many cognitive biases, is also evident in the formation of sensory illusions. For example, the tendency to see patterns or impose meaning on ambiguous stimuli is a feature common to both. The mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace, as early as the 1800s, discussed “illusions in the estimation of probabilities,” presaging modern research on cognitive heuristics and biases, suggesting a long-standing recognition of systematic “errors” in human judgment and perception.⁶² Thus, sensory illusions can be viewed as perceptual analogues of cognitive biases, highlighting that our experience of reality is not a direct reflection but a subjective construction, shaped by the inherent processing tendencies of our minds.

Clinical Relevance: Perceptual Distortions in Neurological and Psychiatric Conditions

The study of sensory illusions has significant clinical relevance. Perceptual distortions, including illusions, are characteristic features of various neurological and psychiatric conditions.

• In delirium, for instance, a patient’s raised perceptual threshold, coupled with anxiety and bewilderment, can lead to frequent misinterpretations of environmental stimuli as illusions (e.g., shadows perceived as threatening figures).⁵⁸
• Mood disorders can also be accompanied by affect illusions, where the prevailing emotional state colors perception (e.g., a bereaved individual momentarily “seeing” the deceased person, or a severely depressed person misinterpreting neutral comments as accusatory).⁵⁸
• The phantom limb phenomenon, a powerful tactile and proprioceptive illusion where amputees experience sensations (often painful) in their missing limb, is a critical area of clinical concern and research.²⁹
• Furthermore, analyzing how individuals with known or suspected neurological conditions perceive standard optical illusions can aid in detecting abnormalities in brain function and assist in the diagnosis of visual processing disorders or even brain injuries.¹¹

Beyond diagnostics, illusions themselves are being harnessed as therapeutic tools.

• Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain is a prime example, where the visual illusion of the missing limb being intact and moving can alleviate pain.³⁰
• Body illusions, induced via virtual reality (VR), mirrors, or fake body parts, are being explored for interventions in chronic pain management, fibromyalgia, eating disorders (by manipulating perceived body size), and various psychological conditions.⁶³

The application of illusion principles in VR and AR for behavioral modification, such as using taller avatars to improve negotiation skills or aged avatars to promote more mature financial decisions ⁶⁴, points towards a powerful, yet ethically complex, frontier. While offering potential for therapeutic interventions—for example, building confidence or encouraging healthier choices—it also raises concerns about potential manipulation if used covertly or for persuasive ends without transparency. As these immersive technologies become more integrated into daily life, a careful ethical navigation of their capacity to induce perceptual and behavioral changes via illusions will be paramount.

The dual role of illusions—as indicators of pathology when perceived abnormally, and as therapeutic agents when applied intentionally—highlights a fascinating aspect of their clinical significance. The brain’s susceptibility to illusion is a fundamental characteristic; whether this susceptibility is problematic or beneficial depends heavily on the specific illusion, the context, and the individual’s overall neurological and psychological state. This underscores that there isn’t a simple “good” or “bad” associated with illusions; their clinical meaning is nuanced.

Practical Applications: From Art and Design to Technology and Marketing

The principles underlying sensory illusions have found a vast range of practical applications, demonstrating how an understanding of perception can be leveraged across diverse domains.

• Art and Design: Artists have long exploited optical illusions to create captivating and thought-provoking works that challenge viewers’ perceptions of reality, depth, and movement. Figures like M.C. Escher are famous for their “impossible constructions,” and contemporary street artists use anamorphosis to create stunning 3D illusions on flat surfaces.⁷ In graphic design and User Interface/User Experience (UI/UX) design, principles of perception and illusion are used to guide users’ attention, create visual hierarchy, enhance usability, and make interfaces more intuitive and engaging.⁷ This can involve strategic use of color, layout, sound, and even haptic feedback to evoke specific feelings or guide actions, sometimes aiming for synesthesia-like effects where one sense influences another.⁶⁶
• Technology (VR/AR): Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality technologies heavily rely on creating convincing sensory illusions to immerse users in digital or digitally-enhanced environments. These technologies are used in entertainment (e.g., gaming, immersive concerts), education, training simulations, and marketing (e.g., interactive advertisements, AR murals that come to life).⁷ Avatar design in VR can even influence user behavior and self-perception.⁶⁴
• Camouflage: The design of effective camouflage for military or wildlife observation purposes directly applies principles of visual illusion to disrupt an object’s outline, make it blend with its surroundings, or create misleading cues about its shape and location.⁷
• Marketing and Advertising: Illusions are often used in marketing to create memorable and attention-grabbing advertisements, influencing consumer perception and product appeal.¹¹

These diverse applications underscore the practical power of understanding how our senses can be systematically influenced.

7. A Historical Lens: Milestones and Key Figures in Illusion Research

The human fascination with sensory illusions is not a recent phenomenon; it stretches back to antiquity. However, the systematic study of these perceptual quirks has evolved considerably, particularly over the last two centuries, marking significant shifts in theoretical understanding and experimental methodology. The historical progression from observing natural illusions to meticulously creating and studying abstract geometrical illusions in controlled laboratory settings reflects a broader movement within psychological science towards experimental rigor and the isolation of variables. While this allowed for more precise investigation, it also raised questions about the ecological validity of findings derived from simplified stimuli, prompting ongoing efforts to bridge laboratory research with real-world perceptual complexity.

Ancient Observations to 19th-Century Laboratory Studies

Ancient civilizations were aware of and utilized visual trickery. Artists in ancient Greece and Egypt, for example, deliberately employed geometric patterns and perspective techniques in their architecture and art to create visual effects that challenged viewers’ perceptions.⁷ Greek philosophers such as Epicharmus, Protagoras, Plato, and Aristotle engaged in debates about how our eyes and brain conspire to deceive us, pondering the nature of perception versus reality.⁷⁰

The 19th century is often regarded as the “golden age of visual illusions”.⁷¹ Initially, scientific interest focused on illusions observable in the natural environment, such as the motion aftereffect experienced after watching a waterfall (the “waterfall illusion”), the apparent motion of the moon when clouds drift past it, or the ambiguous direction of rotation of windmill sails viewed from a distance.⁷¹ Practical concerns, like those in the fabric dyeing industry, also spurred the formulation of early laws of color contrast.⁷¹

A significant transformation occurred with the invention of photography and various optical instruments like the stereoscope (Charles Wheatstone, 1832), phenakistoscope, and zoetrope. These technologies allowed for the presentation of paired images or sequences of slightly different images, effectively transferring the study of perception from the natural environment to the laboratory.⁷¹ The initial phase of this laboratory work aimed to simulate and understand environmental phenomena, particularly those related to depth and motion. However, in the latter half of the 19th century, the focus shifted towards simpler, more abstract stimuli. “Geometrical optical illusions”—a term coined by J.J. Oppel in 1855—involving line drawings that induced small but reliable spatial distortions, became central objects of study.⁷¹

Seminal Experiments and Discoveries

Several specific illusions became iconic during this period, driving research and theoretical development:

• The Necker Cube, first described by Swiss naturalist L. A. Necker in 1832, is a simple line drawing of a cube that spontaneously reverses in perceived depth, demonstrating the brain’s active interpretation of ambiguous 2D figures as 3D objects.⁵
• The Müller-Lyer Illusion, introduced by German sociologist Franz Carl Müller-Lyer in 1889, consists of two lines of equal length, one with inward-pointing fins and the other with outward-pointing fins. The line with outward fins typically appears longer. This illusion sparked considerable debate and research into visual perception, with early theories focusing on misapplied depth cues and later research (e.g., by Segall, Campbell, and Herskovitz in the 1960s) highlighting cultural influences on susceptibility.¹⁷

Major Theoretical Shifts and Influential Thinkers

The study of illusions was instrumental in shaping major theories of perception:

• Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894) was a pivotal figure. He argued that perception is not a passive registration of sensory input but an active process involving memory and “unconscious inferences”.¹⁰ He proposed that illusions occur when our preconceived notions or learned assumptions about the world do not match what we see, terming this “cognitive illusion”.⁷⁰
• Gestalt Psychologists (e.g., Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Köhler) in the early 20th century emphasized that we perceive sensory information as organized wholes rather than collections of disparate parts.¹² They formulated principles (like closure, proximity, similarity) to explain how the brain organizes perception and used these principles to account for illusions such as the rabbit-duck figure, figure-ground reversals, and the illusory contours of Kanizsa’s triangle.
• Richard Gregory (1923-2010) built upon Helmholtz’s ideas, developing the theory of “Perception as Hypotheses”.¹⁰ He likened the process of perception to scientific hypothesis testing, where the brain makes its “best guess” about the external world based on sensory data and prior knowledge. Gregory argued that many illusions demonstrate this hypothesis-testing process and can be understood within a Bayesian framework, where prior probabilities influence perceptual interpretation.¹⁰ His views contrasted with those of J.J. Gibson, who advocated for “direct realism” (the idea that perception is a direct pickup of information from the environment). Gregory defined illusions as “discrepancies from truth” or from simple physical measurements.⁶⁰
• Other 19th-century figures like Wilhelm Wundt (who established the first psychology laboratory and defined geometric-optical illusions as errors in spatial apprehension ⁶⁰), Johannes Müller, and J.J. Oppel ⁷⁰, along with discoverers of specific illusions like Ewald Hering, Ernst Mach, Johann Poggendorff, and Friedrich Zöllner ⁷¹, all contributed to the burgeoning field.

The recurring theme of “perception as inference” or “hypothesis testing,” from Helmholtz through Gregory and resonating with modern predictive processing theories, suggests a robust and enduring theoretical framework. Illusions, often arising from these inferential processes, highlight that our brains are fundamentally geared towards making sense of incomplete or ambiguous information—a crucial strategy for navigating a complex and ever-changing world. They are not merely “failures” of perception but are revelatory of the sophisticated inferential machinery constantly at work.

8. Current Frontiers and Unresolved Questions in Illusion Research

Despite a long history of study, sensory illusions continue to be a vibrant area of research, pushing the boundaries of our understanding of perception, cognition, and neural processing. Modern techniques are allowing for deeper investigations, while new theoretical questions continue to emerge.

The Neuroscience of Illusions: Isolating Brain Mechanisms and Neural Correlates

A major frontier is elucidating the precise neural mechanisms underlying illusory experiences. While it is challenging to isolate the effects of illusions in specific brain regions due to widespread top-down attentional projections that can broadcast expected perceptual properties ⁴, researchers are developing innovative methodologies.

• Studies on the Continuity Illusion (where rapid flashes are seen as continuous motion) have implicated the superior colliculus (SC) as a key brain structure in the transition from static to dynamic vision. Using fMRI, behavioral experiments, and electrophysiology in animal models, research has shown that SC activity patterns change with stimulus frequency, particularly showing suppression at frequencies leading to flicker fusion.⁷² This work has potential clinical applications for assessing visual impairments.
• Research on the Neon-Color-Spreading Illusion in mice, combining electrophysiology and optogenetics, has demonstrated that while primary visual cortex (V1) neurons respond to both illusory and non-illusory patterns, neurons in the secondary visual cortex (V2) play a crucial role in modulating V1 activity specifically when the illusion is perceived. This provides evidence for V2’s involvement in brightness perception.⁷²
• Illusory brightness differences in illusions like Kitaoka’s “Ashai” illusion or “black hole” illusions have been shown to cause measurable changes in observers’ pupil diameters, suggesting a deep physiological basis for these subjective experiences.⁷⁴
• In the Rubber Hand Illusion, recent studies have found dissociations, such as a participant’s facial expression (e.g., disgust) enhancing proprioceptive drift but not affecting subjective reports of ownership, pointing to distinct components of the illusion.⁷⁴
• For ambiguous figures like the Necker Cube, EEG studies suggest that perceptual reversals can be predicted by neural activity changes in higher-order brain areas like the right para-hippocampal place area, occurring almost a second before the reported switch.⁷⁴

These examples illustrate how advances in neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and genetic tools are enabling a more precise mapping of illusory experiences onto brain structure and function.

Computational Models: Simulating Illusions and AI Susceptibility (including “Illusion-Illusions”)

Computational modeling offers another powerful avenue for investigating illusions. These models aim to simulate the perceptual processes that give rise to illusions, allowing researchers to test theoretical assumptions and quantify contributions of different processing stages.⁷⁵

• Models designed to mimic the structure and function of the cortical visual system have been shown to be susceptible to illusions like line-length distortions.⁷⁵ Some models demonstrate that low-level filtering operations, inspired by natural image statistics, can account for a large set of lightness illusions.⁷⁵
• A significant area of research involves testing whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, particularly deep neural networks trained on visual tasks, “perceive” illusions in the same way humans do.⁷⁶ If an AI model exhibits similar susceptibility, it might suggest that it has learned processing algorithms analogous to those in biological visual systems. However, a critical new development is the use of “illusion-illusions”.⁷⁷ These are stimuli that are designed to resemble classic illusions but are, in fact, veridical (e.g., Müller-Lyer figures where the lines are actually different lengths in a way that should cancel or reverse the typical illusion). Current vision language models often mistakenly report seeing illusions in these “illusion-illusions.” This failure suggests that their apparent perception of standard illusions might be based on superficial pattern matching or statistical correlations learned from training data, rather than a deeper, human-like understanding of the perceptual principles involved. This line of inquiry represents a sophisticated new frontier, using illusions not only to understand biological perception but also to critically evaluate and debug the perceptual and reasoning capabilities of AI systems, pushing for models that achieve more than just pattern recognition.

Ongoing Debates: Overarching Theories, the Role of Individual Differences, and the Nature of Perception

Several fundamental questions and debates continue to drive research in the psychology of sensory illusions:

• Overarching Theory of Illusions: Is it possible to formulate a single, unified theory that explains all sensory illusions? Many researchers believe that the term “illusion” encompasses such a diverse range of phenomena—arising from different levels of processing and involving different sensory modalities—that an overarching theory is unlikely.⁷⁴ Illusions might reflect systematic errors in the visual system that evolution has not eliminated, or they could be the outcome of normally functioning mechanisms when tested with atypical or reduced stimuli.⁷⁴ The philosophical debate also continues regarding whether illusions are true “discrepancies from truth” ⁶⁰ or simply characteristic outcomes of sensory coding strategies adapted to the natural world.⁶⁰
• Individual Differences: While the existence of individual differences in illusion susceptibility is well-established ²², the nature and extent of common factors remain debated. Most studies have found weak or no correlations between susceptibility to different visual illusions, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms are largely specific to each illusion.²² However, some recent research has proposed the existence of a general factor of illusion sensitivity (dubbed ‘Factor i’), possibly linked to personality traits.⁵⁷ This area is marked by conflicting results and ongoing investigation. Methodological challenges, such as measurement error in correlations (attenuation) and the difficulty in accurately assessing uncertainty, complicate the study of individual differences.⁷⁹ This debate mirrors broader discussions in cognitive science about general cognitive abilities versus domain-specific modules. Resolving whether a general factor for illusion susceptibility exists could significantly inform our understanding of perceptual architecture and individual cognitive profiles.
• The Nature of Perception: Fundamental questions about how the brain converts raw sensory input into meaningful object representations and conscious percepts remain unresolved.⁷⁰ The precise roles and interplay of feedforward (bottom-up) and feedback (top-down) processing in perception are still being actively investigated.⁷⁰ Furthermore, the “Cultural Byproduct Hypothesis” for illusions like the Müller-Lyer effect continues to be a subject of intense debate, with compelling evidence emerging for innate or evolutionarily ancient biases that challenge purely experience-based explanations.⁵⁹

These ongoing debates and research frontiers underscore that sensory illusions are not just solved puzzles but remain critical phenomena for advancing our understanding of the intricate processes that create our subjective experience of reality.

9. Conclusion: The Enduring Fascination and Scientific Value of Sensory Illusions

Sensory illusions, the captivating instances where our perception diverges from physical reality, offer more than fleeting amusement. They are profound manifestations of the mind’s active and interpretive engagement with the world. Defined as misinterpretations of genuine sensory input—distinct from hallucinations which arise without external stimuli—illusions serve as powerful probes into the complex architecture of human perception.¹

Throughout this exploration, it has become clear that illusions are not mere errors of a faulty system. Instead, they are systematic outcomes that reveal the inherent rules, assumptions, and shortcuts our brains employ to construct a coherent and actionable model of reality from often ambiguous and incomplete sensory data.⁷ The study of illusions vividly demonstrates that perception is a constructive process, deeply influenced by the dynamic interplay of bottom-up sensory signals and top-down cognitive factors such as prior knowledge, expectations, context, and attention.⁴⁵ Principles of Gestalt organization highlight our innate tendencies to find structure and meaning ⁵⁰; failures of perceptual constancy in illusory contexts expose the mechanisms that normally grant us a stable view of the world ¹⁶; and the framework of predictive processing suggests that illusions arise when the brain’s ongoing efforts to predict and explain sensory input lead to percepts dominated by internal models rather than raw data.²³

The variability in illusion susceptibility across individuals, influenced by age, cognitive style, cultural background, and clinical state, further underscores that perception is not a monolithic, universally fixed capacity but a dynamic and plastic function, shaped by experience and biology.²⁰ This variability itself provides rich avenues for research into cognitive development, cultural psychology, and the neural bases of various disorders.

The significance of studying sensory illusions is multifaceted. They illuminate the fundamental mechanisms of normal brain function and perceptual processing, offer insights into the nature of cognitive biases and the subjective construction of reality, and hold considerable clinical relevance for both diagnosing and treating conditions involving perceptual disturbances.⁷ Moreover, the principles gleaned from illusion research have found diverse practical applications, influencing fields from art and design to cutting-edge technologies like virtual and augmented reality, and even informing strategies in marketing and camouflage.⁷

The study of sensory illusions, by consistently revealing the gap between objective physical reality and subjective perceptual experience, fundamentally challenges naive realism—the intuitive belief that we perceive the world directly as it is.⁴ Instead, illusions compel us to recognize that our perceived world is an active, brain-generated model. This realization has profound philosophical implications, touching upon epistemology (how we acquire knowledge) and deepening the mystery of consciousness itself—how does this constructed model give rise to the richness of our subjective awareness?

From ancient philosophical ponderings and artistic explorations to 19th-century psychophysics and today’s advanced neuroscience and computational modeling, the study of illusions has continuously evolved. This historical trajectory demonstrates their enduring power as a scientific tool. As new technologies and theoretical frameworks emerge, illusions consistently provide fertile ground for testing hypotheses and pushing the boundaries of our understanding of the mind and brain. They are not a static collection of curiosities but a dynamic field of inquiry that continues to yield fresh insights into the “mind’s eye.” The unresolved questions and ongoing debates surrounding their mechanisms and implications ensure that sensory illusions will remain a captivating and scientifically invaluable subject for years to come, offering ever-deeper glimpses into the remarkable ways our brains create our experience of reality.

Works cited

1. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10420378/#:~:text=Results%3A%20Hallucinations%20are%20a%20perception,to%20an%20altered%20mental%20status.
2. Hallucinations: Definition, Causes, Treatment & Types, accessed May 9, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23350-hallucinations
3. [Visual hallucinations and illusions, symptoms frequently … – PubMed, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10420378/
4. Using Illusions to Track the Emergence of Visual Perception …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-103023-012730
5. Perceptual illusions and brain models – Professor Richard Gregory …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.richardgregory.org/papers/brainmodels/illusions-and-brain-models_p1.htm
6. Perceptual disorders and illusions | Perception Class Notes | Fiveable, accessed May 9, 2025, https://fiveable.me/perception/unit-12
7. Mind Tricks: Understanding the Science Behind Optical Illusions, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.uoosd.com/science-of-optical-illusions
8. The Future of Perceptual Illusions: From Phenomenology to …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/2381/the-future-of-perceptual-illusions-from-phenomenology-to-neuroscience#:~:text=Briefly%2C%20by%20demonstrating%20dissociations%20between,onto%20the%20structure%20of%20the
9. The Future of Perceptual Illusions: From Phenomenology to …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/2381/the-future-of-perceptual-illusions-from-phenomenology-to-neuroscience/magazine
10. Richard Gregory – Wikipedia, accessed May 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gregory
11. How the Mind is Fooled by Optical Illusions – PageOn.ai, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.pageon.ai/blog/best-optical-illusions
12. Illusion – Sensory, Perception, Visual | Britannica, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/illusion/Sensory-illusions
13. Nothing Is Irrelevant in a Noisy World: Sensory Illusions Reveal …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3489264/
14. Animal visual illusion and confusion: the importance of a perceptual …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/25/3/450/509254
15. 10 Fascinating Optical Illusions | Uxcel, accessed May 9, 2025, https://uxcel.com/blog/10-fascinating-optical-illusions
16. 5.5 Accuracy and Inaccuracy in Perception – Psychology – 1st …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/psychcapilano/chapter/5-5-accuracy-and-inaccuracy-in-perception/
17. Müller-Lyer illusion | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/muller-lyer-illusion
18. Müller-Lyer illusion – Wikipedia, accessed May 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion
19. Culture and Perception, part II: The Muller-Lyer illusion …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.cognitionandculture.net/blogs/simons-blog/culture-and-perception-part-ii-the-muller-lyer-illusion/index.html#:~:text=Europeans%20and%20Americans%20were%20the,strong%20cultural%20influences%20on%20perception.
20. 8.3. Industrialization and Susceptibility to Optical Illusions …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pressbooks.cuny.edu/sensationandperception/chapter/8-2-industrialization-and-susceptibility-to-optical-illusions/
21. Illusions | Open Textbooks for Hong Kong, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/ditatopic/26443
22. The development of visual attention to the Ebbinghaus illusion …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11868647/
23. What Is Predictive Processing? & How It Explains 3 Visual Illusions …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-predictive-processing/
24. Auditory Illusions – How your ears can be fooled | hear.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.hear.com/resources/hearing-loss/auditory-illusions/?click_id=FA1LCP6debFa2VbwdG3RQX_OBJCxuHmlL6O
25. Audio Illusions: Definition & Examples – Vaia, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanations/media-studies/filmmaking/audio-illusions/
26. Taste | Perception 28, accessed May 9, 2025, https://perception28.wordpress.com/category/taste/
27. Auditory Illusion (Phantom Words) – Science World, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/auditory-illusion-phantom-words/
28. Phantom Words – Diana Deutsch, accessed May 9, 2025, http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/phantom_words/
29. Phantom limb – Wikipedia, accessed May 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb
30. Phantom Limb Pain: What It Is, Causes, Treatment & Prevention, accessed May 9, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/12092-phantom-limb-pain
31. Influence of duration and visual feedback on the perception of tactile illusions of motion, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11958647/
32. Tactile Illusions – Psynso, accessed May 9, 2025, https://psynso.com/tactile-illusions/
33. Aristotle’s illusion in focal hand dystonia – International Association …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.iasp-pain.org/publications/relief-news/article/aristotle-illusion-in-focal-hand-dystonia/
34. Aristotle’s illusion – Oxford Reference, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095423799?p=emailAeYl9uPbrA55.&d=/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095423799&print
35. UMA scientists have modified the configuratio | EurekAlert!, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1046362
36. The Neuroscience of Phantom Sensations: Can We Feel What’s Not …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://scitechdaily.com/the-neuroscience-of-phantom-sensations-can-we-feel-whats-not-really-there/
37. Taste illusions – Mind Hacks, accessed May 9, 2025, https://mindhacks.com/2014/09/05/taste-illusions/
38. Short Tales of Olfactory Illusions – Boston Apothecary, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.bostonapothecary.com/short-tales-of-olfactory-illusions/
39. olfactory illusion | Olfactory Illusions Overview – Ontosight, accessed May 9, 2025, https://ontosight.ai/glossary/term/olfactory-illusions-overview–679cd9d738099fda3cf8aa88
40. gustatory illusion | Gustatory Illusions and Taste Perception, accessed May 9, 2025, https://ontosight.ai/glossary/term/gustatory-illusions-and-taste-perception–67a0ed7d6c3593987a511d58
41. ontosight.ai, accessed May 9, 2025, https://ontosight.ai/glossary/term/gustatory-illusions-and-taste-perception–67a0ed7d6c3593987a511d58#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20a%20study%20published,when%20it%20was%20colored%20clear%20.
42. Cross-modal tactile-taste interactions in food evaluations – PMC, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5072487/
43. The Rubber Hand Illusion: Feeling of Ownership and Proprioceptive …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3125296/
44. The Rubber Hand Illusion Revisited: Visuotactile Integration and Self-Attribution, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8023010_The_Rubber_Hand_Illusion_Revisited_Visuotactile_Integration_and_Self-Attribution
45. Perception Principles to Know for Cognitive Psychology – Fiveable, accessed May 9, 2025, https://fiveable.me/lists/perception-principles
46. (PDF) BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN PROCESS IN COGNITIVE …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374924026_BOTTOM-UP_AND_TOP-DOWN_PROCESS_IN_COGNITIVE_PSYCHOLOGY
47. Bottom Up vs Top Down Processing – Jack Westin, accessed May 9, 2025, https://jackwestin.com/resources/blog/bottom-up-vs-top-down-processing
48. Sensation and Perception | Introduction to Psychology, accessed May 9, 2025, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hvcc-psychology-1/chapter/outcome-sensation-and-perception/
49. Perceptual Illusions and Visual Tricks | Intro to Visual Thinking Class …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/introduction-to-visual-thinking/unit-5/perceptual-illusions-visual-tricks/study-guide/kzyS7E9AtXC2ofAv
50. Understanding Gestalt Principles: Definition and Examples – Dovetail, accessed May 9, 2025, https://dovetail.com/ux/gestalt-principles/
51. www1.psych.purdue.edu, accessed May 9, 2025, http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/120/Gestalt%20Perception-Spr2010.pdf
52. Optical illusion – Wikipedia, accessed May 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
53. Symptom Perception From a Predictive Processing Perspective …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://cpe.psychopen.eu/index.php/cpe/article/view/2553/2553.html
54. Contextual Illusions Reveal the Limit of Unconscious Visual …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3278746/
55. Annual Review of Vision Science | Annual Reviews, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/vision/browse
56. The BTPI: An online battery for measuring susceptibility to visual …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2792724
57. Individual differences in the illusion of self-motion (vection): The role …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391322476_Individual_differences_in_the_illusion_of_self-motion_vection_The_role_of_field_dependence_anomalous_perceptual_experiences_and_tolerance_of_ambiguity
58. Disorders of Perception (Chapter 3) – Fish’s Clinical Psychopathology, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fishs-clinical-psychopathology/disorders-of-perception/C22B506ED6D83D93C2DFD092422B93F5
59. perception.jhu.edu, accessed May 9, 2025, https://perception.jhu.edu/files/PDFs/25_MullerLyer/AmirFirestone_InPress_MullerLyer_PsychReview.pdf
60. The Nature of Illusions: A New Synthesis Based on Verifiability – PMC, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9206545/
61. Cognitive bias – Wikipedia, accessed May 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
62. Laplace’s theories of cognitive illusions, heuristics, and biases – Columbia University, accessed May 9, 2025, https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/published/laplace21.pdf
63. Body Illusions for Clinical Applications | Frontiers Research Topic, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/21441/body-illusions-for-clinical-applications/magazine
64. Model of Illusions and Virtual Reality – Frontiers, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01125/full
65. sciencealerts.quora.com, accessed May 9, 2025, https://sciencealerts.quora.com/How-are-optical-illusions-used-Where-do-we-use-this-technology#:~:text=t%20really%20there.-,They%20can%20be%20used%20for,education%2C%20research%2C%20and%20marketing.&text=Entertainment-,Optical%20illusions%20are%20often%20used%20in%20entertainment%2C%20such%20as%20in,a%20scene%20more%20visually%20appealing.
66. Learn the Role of Perception and Memory in HCI and UX | IxDF, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/ixdf-perception-and-memory-course-insights
67. Exploring Unique Live Experiences Through Experiential …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/exploring-unique-live-experiences-experiential-entertainment-magic
68. Augmented Reality in Entertainment & Media – BrandXR, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.brandxr.io/augmented-reality-in-entertainment-media
69. Multisensory Experiences: Formation, Realization, and …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://cacm.acm.org/research/multisensory-experiences-formation-realization-and-responsibilities/
70. Lesson: OPTICAL ILLUSIONS – 20/20 Magazine, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.2020mag.com/ce/optical-illusions
71. The age of illusions | BPS, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/age-illusions
72. Seeing Motion: Brain’s Role in the Continuity Illusion – Neuroscience …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://neurosciencenews.com/visual-continuity-illusion-25599/
73. Illusion helps demystify the way vision works | The University of Tokyo, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/press/z0508_00347.html
74. Editorial: The future of perceptual illusions: from phenomenology to …, accessed May 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10335759/
75. Computational modelling of visual illusions – Macquarie University, accessed May 9, 2025, https://figshare.mq.edu.au/articles/thesis/Computational_modelling_of_visual_illusions/19431890
76. Integrating Visual System Mechanisms, Computational Models and Algorithms/Technologies | Frontiers Research Topic, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/5491/integrating-visual-system-mechanisms-computational-models-and-algorithmstechnologies/magazine
77. The Illusion-Illusion: Vision Language Models See Illusions Where There are None – arXiv, accessed May 9, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2412.18613v1
78. [2412.18613] The Illusion-Illusion: Vision Language Models See Illusions Where There are None – arXiv, accessed May 9, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18613
79. osf.io, accessed May 9, 2025, https://osf.io/6z92y/download