The Hollow-Face Illusion: Object-Specific Knowledge, General Assumptions or Properties of the Stimulus?
Abstract
The hollow-face illusion, in which a mask appears as a convex face, is a powerful example of binocular depth inversion occurring with a real object under a wide range of viewing conditions. Explanations of the illusion are reviewed and six experiments reported. In experiment 1 the detrimental effect of figural inversion, evidence for the importance of familiarity, was found for other oriented objects. The inversion effect held for masks lit from the side (experiment 2). The illusion was stronger for a mask rotated by 908 lit from its forehead than from its chin, suggesting that familiar patterns of shading enhance the illusion (experiment 2). There were no effects of light source visibility or any left/right asymmetry (experiment 3). In experiments 4 – 6 we used a ‘virtual’ hollow face, with illusion strength quantified by the proportion of noise texture needed to eliminate the illusion. Adding characteristic surface colour enhanced the illusion, consistent with the familiar face pigmentation outweighing additional bottom - up cues (experiment 4). There was no difference between perspective and orthographic projection. Photographic negation reduced, but did not eliminate, the illusion, suggesting shading is important but not essential (experiment 5). Absolute depth was not critical, although a shallower mask was given less extreme convexity ratings (experiment 6). We argue that the illusion arises owing to a convexity preference when the raw data have ambiguous interpretations. However, using a familiar object with typical orientation, shading, and pigmentation greatly enhances the effect.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some authors argue that certain visual illusions rely on some form of top-down processing, a claim that has been contested.
“some authors argue that certain illusions rely on some form of top-down processing (40,41), a claim that has been contested (42,43).”
From Shift toward prior knowledge confers a perceptual advantage in early psychosis and psychosis-prone healthy individuals (2015) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Hill, H., & Johnston, A.
- Affiliations
- Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (JP)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hill, Harold
- Venue
- Perception
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 199-223
- ISSN
- 0301-0066 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4233
- OpenAlex
- W2119714143
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perception (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
- Keywords
- object familiarity, shading cues, surface color, perspective projection, orthographic projection, depth perception
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Depth Perception, Face, Female, Form Perception, Humans, Lighting, Male, Optical Illusions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review