Position in the Visual Field and Spatial Expansion

Measurements of the tilt illusion by parallelism matches have taken as their baseline data estimates of parallelism between two lines. This is because Carpenter and Blakemore and others found in this situation that parallel lines appeared to diverge at their upper ends. It was hypothesised that this effect was due to inappropriate constancy scaling—the parallel lines being interpreted as being located in a receding plane—and that consequently it was inappropriate to take this effect into account in assessing the degree of the tilt illusion. To test the theory, a horizontal line was compared with other horizontal and vertical lines lower down in the visual field. A tendency to underestimate the length of lines lower down in the visual field was found but this varied inversely with distance from the standard. The findings were accounted for on the assumption that the occurrence of inappropriate constancy scaling depended upon prior organization by contiguity which determined whether the two lines were taken as a group or not.