Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Centre-of-Mass Confounds Contribute to Familiar Size Stroop Effects with Boger and Firestone’s ‘Visual Anagrams’ Cover

Centre-of-Mass Confounds Contribute to Familiar Size Stroop Effects with Boger and Firestone’s ‘Visual Anagrams’

By:   
Open Access
|Apr 2026

References

  1. Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N. Z., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: an online behavioural experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 388407. 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x
  2. Boger, T., & Firestone, C. (2025). Visual anagrams reveal high-level effects with ‘identical’ stimuli. Current Biology, 35(19), R910R912. 10.1016/j.cub.2025.08.036
  3. Brody, G., Revencu, B., & Csibra, G. (2023). Images of objects are interpreted as symbols: A case study of automatic size measurement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(4), 1146. 10.1037/xge0001318
  4. Freeman, J., & Simoncelli, E. (2011). Metamers of the ventral stream. Nature Neuroscience 14, 11951201. 10.1038/nn.2889
  5. Geng, D., Park, I., & Owens, A. (2024). Visual anagrams: Generating multi-view optical illusions with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2415424163). 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02280
  6. Girshick, A. R., Landy, M. S., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2011). Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nature neuroscience, 14(7), 926932. 10.1038/nn.2831
  7. Hagen, S., Zhao, Y., Moonen, L., Ulken, N., & Peelen, M. V. (2024). What drives the automatic retrieval of real-world object size knowledge? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(4), 358. 10.1037/xhp0001189
  8. JASP Team. (2025). JASP (Version 0.95.1) [Computer software].
  9. Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2012). A familiar-size Stroop effect: real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 561. 10.1037/a0028294
  10. Levine, M. W., & McAnany, J. J. (2005). The relative capabilities of the upper and lower visual hemifields. Vision research, 45(21), 28202830. 10.1016/j.visres.2005.04.001
  11. Long, B., & Konkle, T. (2017). A familiar-size Stroop effect in the absence of basic-level recognition. Cognition, 168, 234242. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.025
  12. Long, B., Konkle, T., Cohen, M. A., & Alvarez, G. A. (2016). Mid-level perceptual features distinguish objects of different real-world sizes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(1), 95. 10.1037/xge0000130
  13. Pisu, V., Mehraeen, S., Graf, E. W., Ernst, M. O., & Adams, W. J. (2025). Biases in the perceived area of different shapes: A comprehensive account and model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 51(9), 11671177. 10.1037/xhp0001322
  14. Ramachandran, V. S. (1988). Perceiving shape from shading. Scientific American, 259(2), 7683. 10.1038/scientificamerican0888-76
  15. Wenderoth, P. (1994). The salience of vertical symmetry. Perception, 23(2), 221236. 10.1068/p230221
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.500 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Page range: 27 - 27
Submitted on: Apr 22, 2026
Accepted on: Apr 22, 2026
Published on: Apr 28, 2026
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2026 Gregory Davis, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.