The perspective and size-constancy theories of illusions are described. They both imply that illusory distortions arise as a consequence of mistaken perceptual impressions of depth. Predictions from these theories are tested in six experiments and several ancillary studies. They show that although differences in apparent distance may be sufficient for the appearance of illusions their presence is not a necessary condition. Detailed theoretical implications of these results are considered in discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BinetA. (1895). La mesure des illusions visuelles chez les enfants.Rev. Phil.40, 11–25.
2.
BrownL. B.HoussiadasL. (1965). The perception of illusions as a constancy phenomenon.Br. J. Psychol.56, 135–41.
3.
CroslandH. R.TaylorH. R.NewsomS. J. (1929). Practice and improvability in the Müller-Lyer illusion in relation to intelligence.J. gen. Psychol.2, 290–306.
4.
EmmertE. (1881). Grossenverhaltnisse der Nachbilder.Klin. Mbl. Augenheilk19, 443–50.
5.
FisherG. H.An experimental and theoretical appraisal of the inappropriate size-depth theories of illusions.Br. J. Psychol.1968a 59, 373–83.
6.
FisherG. H.Illusions and size-constancy.Am. J. Psychol.1968a 81, 2–21.
7.
FisherG. H. (1968c). The Frameworks for Perceptual Localization Report on Min. of Def. Res. Project No. 70/GEN/9617, Dept. Psychol., University Newcastle upon Tyne.
8.
GregoryR. L. (1963). Distortion of space as inappropriate constancy scaling.Nature, Lond.199, 678–80.
9.
GregoryR. L. (1966a). Visual illusions.New Horizons in PsychologyFossB. M.Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
10.
GregoryR. L. (1966b). Eye and BrainLondon: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
11.
HamiltonV. (1966). Susceptibility of the Müller-Lyer illusion and its relationship to differences in size constancy.J. exp. Psychol.18, 63–72.
12.
von HelmholtzH. (1867). Popular Scientific LecturesNew York: Appleton-Century-Croft In Warren, R. M. and Warren, R. P. (Eds.) (1968). Helmholtz on Perception. New York: Wiley.
13.
HeringE. (1861). Beiträage zur Physiologie. ILeipzig: Engelmann.
14.
HeymansG. (1896). Quantitative Untersuchungen über das “optische Paradoxen”.Z. Psychol.9, 221–55.
15.
von HolstE. (1957). Aktive Leistungen der menschlichen Gesichtswahrnehmung.Studium Generale.10, 231–43.
16.
HotopfW. H. N. (1966). The size-constancy theory of visual illusions.Br. J. Psychol.57, 307–18.
17.
JuddC. H. (1902). Practice and its effect on the perception of illusions.Psychol. Rev.9, 27–39.
18.
KöhlerW.FishbackJ. (1950). The destruction of the Müller-Lyer illusion in repeated trials. I. An examination of two theories. II. Satiation patterns and memory traces.J. exp. Psychol.40, 267–81398–410.
19.
KristofW. (1961). über die Einordnung geometrisch-optischen Täuschungen in die Gesetzmässigkeiten der visuellen Wahrnehmung.Archiv. ges. Psychol.113, 1–48127–50.
20.
LucasA. (1967). An Experimental Study of the Geometrical IllusionsUniversity of Newcastle upon Tyne Ph.D. thesis.
21.
Müller-LyerF. C. (1889). Optische Urteilstäuschungen.Arch. Physiol.Suppl. Bd., 263–70.
22.
NeckerL. A. (1832). Observations on some remarkable phenomena seen in Switzerland; and on optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing of a crystal or geometrical solid.Phil. Mag.3, ser., I329–43.
23.
OrbisonW. D. (1939). Shape as a function of the vector field.Am. J. Psychol.52, 31–45.
24.
PiagetJ.von AlbertiniB. (1950). Recherches sur le développment des perceptions: XXI L'illusion de Müller-Lyer.Arch. Psychol., Geneve33, 1–48.
25.
PollackR. H. (1964). Simultaneous and successive presentation of elements of the Müller Lyer figure and chronological age.Percep. mot. Skills.19, 303–10.
26.
PollackR. H.ChaplinM. R. (1964). Effects of prolonged stimulation by components of the Müller-Lyer figure upon the magnitude of illusion.Percep. mot. Skills18, 377–82.
27.
PonzoM. (1912). Rapports de contraste angulaire et l'appréciation de grandeur desastres à l'horizon.Arch. Ital. d. Biol.58, 327–9.
28.
RiversW. H. R. (1901). Vision.Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to the Torres StraitsHaddonA. C.Cambridge: Cambridge University PressVol. II, part I.
29.
RiversW. H. R. (1905). Observations on the senses of the Todas.Br. J. Psychol.1, 321–96.
30.
SanfordE. C. (1897). A Course in Experimental Psychology, Part 1: Sensation and PerceptionLondon: Heath.
31.
SegallM. H.CampbellD. T.HerskovitsM. J. (1966). The Influence of Culture on Visual PerceptionIndianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
32.
TauschR. (1954). Optische Täuschungen als artifizielle Effekte der Gestaltungprozesse von Grössen- und Formenkonstanz in der natürlichen Raumwahrnehmung.Psychol. Forsch.24, 299–348.
33.
ThiéryA. (1896). über geometrisch-optische Täuschungen.Phil. Stud.12, 67–126.f.
34.
Van BiervlietJ.-J. (1896). Nouvelles mesures des illusions visuelles chez les adultes et les enfants.Rev. Phil.41, 169–81.
35.
WheatstoneC. (1838). Contributions to the physiology of vision: On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision.Phil. Trans. R. Soc., part 1371–94.
36.
WundtW. (1898). Die geometrisch-optischen Täuschungen.Abh. sächs. Akad. Wiss.24, 53–178.
