Delboeuf illusion

Last updated
Though the two circled dark discs are the same size, the left disc seems smaller than the right one. Delboeuf illusion.svg
Though the two circled dark discs are the same size, the left disc seems smaller than the right one.

The Delboeuf illusion is an optical illusion of relative size perception: In the best-known version of the illusion, two discs of identical size have been placed near to each other and one is surrounded by a ring; the surrounded disc then appears larger than the non-surrounded disc if the ring is close, while appearing smaller than the non-surrounded disc if the ring is distant. A 2005 study suggests it is caused by the same visual processes that cause the Ebbinghaus illusion. [1]



The illusion was named for the Belgian philosopher, mathematician, experimental psychologist, hypnotist, and psychophysicist Joseph Remi Leopold Delboeuf (1831–1896), who discovered it in 1865. [2]


According to Girgus and Coren (1982) the Delboeuf illusion uses both assimilation and contrast as elements in its perception distortion. [3] Assimilation is the predominant factor in the disc in the smaller outer ring (the example on the right in the image above). Girgus and Coren mentioned that this inner disc “tends to be overestimated” when compared to a regular disc without the additional concentric circle. [3] As the two circles are so close, they are perceived as a pair and the inner circle is overestimated.

The circle on the right however, will often appear smaller when compared to a simple circle of the same size. This is attributed to the contrast effect. The distance between the circles causes them to be perceived as separate and contrasting. The larger-circumference ring dwarfs the smaller central disc and causes it to be perceived as smaller. [3]

After a few minutes of looking at this illusion, the illusory effects diminish for human subjects. [3]

Studies regarding variations of the Delboeuf illusion found that when the outer circle is incomplete, the illusion is not as potent. When an additional circle was added surrounding the original two, the effect of the illusion was increased. [4]

Dieting and food perception

In 2012, Ittersum and Wansink published a study that hinted to the Delboeuf illusion as a factor in increased food servings. The study tested three different bowl diameters and measured how individuals served themselves differently depending on the bowl's diameter. The results showed that consumers poured 9.9% more soup in larger bowls, and 8.2% less in smaller bowls, as compared to the control bowls. It was mentioned that this reaction could be driven by the Delboeuf illusion. [5]

This illusion in connection to food however appears to be nuanced: Zitron-Emanuel and Ganel (2018) highlighted how effects of the Delboeuf illusion, when related to food items, is less potent when the participants are experiencing mild hunger. These researchers suggest that these findings are potential grounds for mitigating the use of the Delboeuf illusion as a dieting aid. [6]

Use in animal cognition

The Delboeuf illusion (often in connection with the Ebbinghaus illusion) has been used with great frequency in testing animal perception, since the ability to discern size seems highly relevant for many aspects of survival, particularly regarding food. The perception of the Delboeuf illusion differs greatly depending on the species.


Parrish & Beran (2014) found that chimpanzees would regularly select food platters that contained more food. Further testing showed that when chimpanzees were offered food on small and large plates, as they often picked the food on the smaller plate, even when the amounts were the same. This was discussed as a sign of the chimpanzee’s susceptibility to the Delboeuf illusion. [7]

A later study showed that capuchin and rhesus monkeys, however, were unaffected by the illusion when asked to discriminate between the two circles. In contrast, when the illusion was later presented to the monkeys as part of an absolute classification task (deciding if the circles were "big" or "small"), both species reacted to the illusion and made selections that were much like the selections made by humans and chimpanzees. [8]

An attempt to run tests of portion discrimination in connection to the Delboeuf illusion on ring-tailed lemurs was unsuccessful; the lemurs' meal selections were not increased by a statistically significant degree by larger food portions, unless one option was nearly 40% larger. [9]


Miletto-Petrazzini, Bisazza and Agrillo (2016) replicated the study conducted by Parrish and Beran (2014) but used dogs as the participants instead of chimpanzees. In this study, the dogs were allowed to select whichever food portion appeared larger as presented on larger and smaller plates. The response however was reversed from what humans usually exhibit: Dogs selected the meal presented on the larger plate most often. The authors went on to discuss how this may hint towards the dogs' reactions to the Delboeuf illusion as a matter of assimilated learning. [10]


Fish have been repeatedly studied as well to understand if they perceive the Delboeuf illusion. Fish trained to select larger center circles for reward, responded to the illusion differently depending on the species of fish. A 2008 study of damselfish illustrated that damselfish responded to variations of the Delboeuf illusion in a similar ways to humans and dolphins, [11] while guppies responded in reverse, selecting the circles with the larger annulus. [12] bamboo sharks did not generally make selections significantly higher than chance during the testing, and only showed preference to larger diagrams in general. [11]


Bearded dragons and red-footed tortoise were both studied to understand if these species can perceive the Delboeuf illusion. Bearded dragons showed action that suggests that they perceive the illusion in a way similar to humans. The tortoises however, showed no preference to larger portions (a similar problem found in the study of ring-tailed lemurs) and were thus not testable by the method that had been outlined by the test designers. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Optical illusion</span> Visually perceived images that differ from objective reality

In visual perception, an optical illusion is an illusion caused by the visual system and characterized by a visual percept that arguably appears to differ from reality. Illusions come in a wide variety; their categorization is difficult because the underlying cause is often not clear but a classification proposed by Richard Gregory is useful as an orientation. According to that, there are three main classes: physical, physiological, and cognitive illusions, and in each class there are four kinds: Ambiguities, distortions, paradoxes, and fictions. A classical example for a physical distortion would be the apparent bending of a stick half immerged in water; an example for a physiological paradox is the motion aftereffect. An example for a physiological fiction is an afterimage. Three typical cognitive distortions are the Ponzo, Poggendorff, and Müller-Lyer illusion. Physical illusions are caused by the physical environment, e.g. by the optical properties of water. Physiological illusions arise in the eye or the visual pathway, e.g. from the effects of excessive stimulation of a specific receptor type. Cognitive visual illusions are the result of unconscious inferences and are perhaps those most widely known.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cognition</span> Act or process of knowing

Cognition is the "mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses". It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and discover new knowledge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal cognition</span> Intelligence of non-human animals

Animal cognition encompasses the mental capacities of non-human animals including insect cognition. The study of animal conditioning and learning used in this field was developed from comparative psychology. It has also been strongly influenced by research in ethology, behavioral ecology, and evolutionary psychology; the alternative name cognitive ethology is sometimes used. Many behaviors associated with the term animal intelligence are also subsumed within animal cognition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Great ape language</span> Efforts to teach non-human primates to communicate with humans

Research into great ape language has involved teaching chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans to communicate with humans and each other using sign language, physical tokens, lexigrams, and imitative human speech. Some primatologists argue that the use of these communication methods indicate primate "language" ability, though this depends on one's definition of language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ternus illusion</span>

The Ternus illusion, also commonly referred to as the Ternus Effect is an illusion related to human visual perception involving apparent motion. In a simplified explanation of one form of the illusion, two discs, are shown side by side as the first frame in a sequence of three frames. Next a blank frame is presented for a very short, variable duration. In the final frame, two similar discs are then shown in a shifted position. Depending on various factors including the time intervals between frames as well as spacing and layout, observers perceive either element motion, in which L appears to move to R while C remains stationary or they report experiencing group motion, in which L and C appear to move together to C and R. Both element motion and group motion can be observed in animated examples to the right in Figures 1 and 2.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moon illusion</span> Optical illusion involving the Moon

The Moon illusion is an optical illusion which causes the Moon to appear larger near the horizon than it does higher up in the sky. It has been known since ancient times and recorded by various cultures. The explanation of this illusion is still debated.

Metacognition is an awareness of one's thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them. The term comes from the root word meta, meaning "beyond", or "on top of". Metacognition can take many forms, such as reflecting on one's ways of thinking and knowing when and how to use particular strategies for problem-solving. There are generally two components of metacognition: (1) knowledge about cognition and (2) regulation of cognition. A metacognitive model differs from other scientific models in that the creator of the model is per definition also enclosed within it. Scientific models are often prone to distancing the observer from the object or field of study whereas a metacognitive model in general tries to include the observer in the model.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jastrow illusion</span> Optical illusion

The Jastrow illusion is an optical illusion attributed to the Polish-American psychologist Joseph Jastrow. This optical illusion is known under different names: Ring-Segment illusion, Jastrow illusion, Wundt area illusion or Wundt-Jastrow illusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lilac chaser</span> Optical illusion

The lilac chaser is a visual illusion, also known as the Pac-Man illusion. It consists of 12 lilac, blurred discs arranged in a circle, around a small black, central cross on a grey background. One of the discs disappears briefly, then the next, and the next, and so on, in a clockwise direction. When one stares at the cross for at least 30 seconds, one sees three illusions

  1. A gap running around the circle of lilac discs;
  2. A green disc running around the circle of lilac discs in place of the gap; and
  3. The green disc running around on the grey background, with the lilac discs having disappeared in sequence.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ebbinghaus illusion</span> Optical illusion

The Ebbinghaus illusion or Titchener circles is an optical illusion of relative size perception. Named for its discoverer, the German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850–1909), the illusion was popularized in the English-speaking world by Edward B. Titchener in a 1901 textbook of experimental psychology, hence its alternative name. In the best-known version of the illusion, two circles of identical size are placed near to each other, and one is surrounded by large circles while the other is surrounded by small circles. As a result of the juxtaposition of circles, the central circle surrounded by large circles appears smaller than the central circle surrounded by small circles.

Ai is a female western chimpanzee, currently living at the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University. She is the first subject of the Ai project, a research program started in 1978 by Kiyoko Murofushi and Tetsuro Matsuzawa which is aimed at understanding chimpanzee cognition through computer interface experiments.

Comparative cognition is the comparative study of the mechanisms and origins of cognition in various species, and is sometimes seen as more general than, or similar to, comparative psychology. From a biological point of view, work is being done on the brains of fruit flies that should yield techniques precise enough to allow an understanding of the workings of the human brain on a scale appreciative of individual groups of neurons rather than the more regional scale previously used. Similarly, gene activity in the human brain is better understood through examination of the brains of mice by the Seattle-based Allen Institute for Brain Science, yielding the freely available Allen Brain Atlas. This type of study is related to comparative cognition, but better classified as one of comparative genomics. Increasing emphasis in psychology and ethology on the biological aspects of perception and behavior is bridging the gap between genomics and behavioral analysis.

In human visual perception, the visual angle, denoted θ, subtended by a viewed object sometimes looks larger or smaller than its actual value. One approach to this phenomenon posits a subjective correlate to the visual angle: the perceived visual angle or perceived angular size. An optical illusion where the physical and subjective angles differ is then called a visual angle illusion or angular size illusion.

The approximate number system (ANS) is a cognitive system that supports the estimation of the magnitude of a group without relying on language or symbols. The ANS is credited with the non-symbolic representation of all numbers greater than four, with lesser values being carried out by the parallel individuation system, or object tracking system. Beginning in early infancy, the ANS allows an individual to detect differences in magnitude between groups. The precision of the ANS improves throughout childhood development and reaches a final adult level of approximately 15% accuracy, meaning an adult could distinguish 100 items versus 115 items without counting. The ANS plays a crucial role in development of other numerical abilities, such as the concept of exact number and simple arithmetic. The precision level of a child's ANS has been shown to predict subsequent mathematical achievement in school. The ANS has been linked to the intraparietal sulcus of the brain.

Imitative learning is a type of social learning whereby new behaviors are acquired via imitation. Imitation aids in communication, social interaction, and the ability to modulate one's emotions to account for the emotions of others, and is "essential for healthy sensorimotor development and social functioning". The ability to match one's actions to those observed in others occurs in humans and animals; imitative learning plays an important role in humans in cultural development. Imitative learning is different from observational learning in that it requires a duplication of the behaviour exhibited by the model, whereas observational learning can occur when the learner observes an unwanted behaviour and its subsequent consequences and as a result learns to avoid that behaviour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Delboeuf</span>

Joseph Rémi Léopold Delbœuf was a Belgian experimental psychologist who studied visual illusions including his work on the Delboeuf illusion. He studied and taught philosophy, mathematics, and psychophysics. He published works across a diverse range of subjects including the curative effects of hypnotism.

Number sense in animals is the ability of creatures to represent and discriminate quantities of relative sizes by number sense. It has been observed in various species, from fish to primates. Animals are believed to have an approximate number system, the same system for number representation demonstrated by humans, which is more precise for smaller quantities and less so for larger values. An exact representation of numbers higher than three has not been attested in wild animals, but can be demonstrated after a period of training in captive animals.

Theory of mind in animals is an extension to non-human animals of the philosophical and psychological concept of theory of mind (ToM), sometimes known as mentalisation or mind-reading. It involves an inquiry into whether non-human animals have the ability to attribute mental states to themselves and others, including recognition that others have mental states that are different from their own. To investigate this issue experimentally, researchers place non-human animals in situations where their resulting behavior can be interpreted as supporting ToM or not.

Interindividual differences in perception describes the effect that differences in brain structure or factors such as culture, upbringing and environment have on the perception of humans. Interindividual variability is usually regarded as a source of noise for research. However, in recent years, it has become an interesting source to study sensory mechanisms and understand human behavior. With the help of modern neuroimaging methods such as fMRI and EEG, individual differences in perception could be related to the underlying brain mechanisms. This has helped to explain differences in behavior and cognition across the population. Common methods include studying the perception of illusions, as they can effectively demonstrate how different aspects such as culture, genetics and the environment can influence human behavior.

Inequity aversion in animals is the willingness to sacrifice material pay-offs for the sake of greater equality, something humans tend to do from early age. It manifests itself through negative responses when rewards are not distributed equally between animals. In controlled experiments it has been observed, to varying degrees, in capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, macaques, marmosets, dogs, wolves, rats, crows and ravens. No evidence of the effect was found in tests with orangutans, owl monkeys, squirrel monkeys, tamarins, kea, and cleaner fish. Based on mixed results in experimental studies it may be concluded that some bonobos, baboons, gibbons, and gorillas are inequity averse. Disadvantageous inequity aversion, which occurs when the animal protests as it gets a lesser reward than another animal, is most common. But advantageous inequity aversion has been observed as well, in chimpanzees, baboons and capuchins: the animal protests when it gets a better reward. Scientists believe that sensitivity to inequity co-evolved with the ability to cooperate, as it helps to sustain benefitting from cooperation. There is little evidence for inequity aversion in non-cooperative species.


  1. Roberts B, Harris MG, Yates TA (2005). "The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles)". Perception. 34 (7): 847–56. doi:10.1068/p5273. PMID   16124270. S2CID   26626773.
  2. Delboeuf, Franz Joseph (1865). "Note sur certaines illusions d'optique: Essai d'une théorie psychophysique de la maniere dont l'oeil apprécie les distances et les angles". Bulletins de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, Lettres et Beaux-Arts de Belgique (in French). 19: 195–216.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Girgus, Joan S.; Coren, Stanley (1982-11-01). "Assimilation and contrast illusions: Differences in plasticity". Perception & Psychophysics. 32 (6): 555–561. doi: 10.3758/BF03204210 . ISSN   1532-5962. PMID   7167354.
  4. Weintraub, Daniel J.; Schneck, Michael K. (1986-05-01). "Fragments of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus illusions: Contour / context explorations of misjudged circle size". Perception & Psychophysics. 40 (3): 147–158. doi: 10.3758/BF03203010 . ISSN   1532-5962. PMID   3774497.
  5. van Ittersum, Koert; Wansink, Brian (2012-08-01). "Plate size and color suggestibility: The Delboeuf illusion's bias on serving and eating behavior". Journal of Consumer Research. 39 (2): 215–228. doi: 10.1086/662615 . ISSN   0093-5301.
  6. Zitron-Emanuel, Noa; Ganel, Tzvi (1 September 2018). "Food deprivation reduces the susceptibility to size-contrast illusions". Appetite. 128: 138–144. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.06.006. ISSN   1095-8304. PMID   29885383. S2CID   47008687.
  7. Parrish, Audrey E.; Beran, Michael J. (2014-03-01). "When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size". Animal Cognition. 17 (2): 427–434. doi:10.1007/s10071-013-0674-3. ISSN   1435-9456. PMC   3865074 . PMID   23949698.
  8. Parrish, Audrey E.; Brosnan, Sarah F.; Beran, Michael J. (October 2015). "Do you see what I see? A comparative investigation of the Delboeuf illusion in humans (Homo sapiens), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. 41 (4): 395–405. doi:10.1037/xan0000078. ISSN   2329-8456. PMC   4594174 . PMID   26322505.
  9. "Preliminary study to investigate the Delboeuf illusion in ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta): Methodological challenges". Animal Behavior and Cognition. Retrieved 2020-04-04.
  10. Miletto Petrazzini, Maria Elena; Bisazza, Angelo; Agrillo, Christian (2017-05-01). "Do domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) perceive the Delboeuf illusion?". Animal Cognition. 20 (3): 427–434. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-1066-2. hdl: 11577/3222731 . ISSN   1435-9456. PMID   27999956. S2CID   254142505.
  11. 1 2 Fuss, Theodora; Schluessel, Vera (2017-08-01). "The Ebbinghaus illusion in the gray bamboo shark (Chiloscyllium griseum) in comparison to the teleost damselfish (Chromis chromis)". Zoology. 123: 16–29. doi:10.1016/j.zool.2017.05.006. ISSN   0944-2006. PMID   28712674.
  12. Lucon-Xiccato, Tyrone; Santacà, Maria; Miletto Petrazzini, Maria Elena; Agrillo, Christian; Dadda, Marco (2019-05-01). "Guppies, Poecilia reticulata, perceive a reversed Delboeuf illusion". Animal Cognition. 22 (3): 291–303. doi:10.1007/s10071-019-01237-6. ISSN   1435-9456. PMID   30848385. S2CID   254140496.
  13. Santacà, Maria Miletto; Petrazzini, Maria Elena; Agrillo, Christian; Wilkinson, Anna (2019). "Can reptiles perceive visual illusions? Delboeuf illusion in red-footed tortoise (Chelonoidis carbonaria) and bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps)". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 133 (4): 419–427. doi:10.1037/com0000176. PMID   30896231. S2CID   84842383 . Retrieved 2020-04-04.