It has often been suggested that many visual geometric illusions are caused by inappropriate constancy scaling triggered by depth cues implicit in the two-dimensional array. A new size illusion based upon a minimal interposition cue is presented, which seems to support this contention. Asymmetries in the results suggest that the major component of the illusion is overestimation of apparently more distant targets rather than underestimation of apparently closer targets.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CorenS, 1969“The influence of optical aberrations on the magnitude of the Poggendorff illusion”Perception and Psychophysics6185–186
2.
CorenS, 1970“Lateral inhibition in geometrical illusions”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology22274–278
3.
CorenSFestingerL, 1967“An alternative view of the Gibson normalisation effect”Perception and Psychophysics2621–626
4.
CorenSGirgusJ S, 1972“A comparison of five methods of illusion measurement”Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation4240–244
5.
CorenSGirgusJ S, 1973“Visual spatial illusions: Many explanations”Science179503–504
6.
DayR H, 1972“Visual spatial illusions: A general explanation”Science1751335–1340
7.
GillamB, 1971“A depth processing theory of the Poggendorff illusion”Perception and Psychophysics10211–216
8.
GillamB, 1973“The nature of size scaling in the Ponzo and related illusions”Perception and Psychophysics14353–357
9.
GirgusJ SCorenS, 1973“Peripheral and central components in the formation of visual illusions”American Journal of Optometry and Archives of the American Optometric Society50533–540
10.
GirgusJ SCorenS, 1975“Depth cues and constancy scaling in the horizontal-vertical illusion: The bisection error”Canadian Journal of Psychology2959–65
11.
GirgusJ SCorenSAgdernM, 1972“The interrelationship between the Ebbinghaus and Delboef illusions”Journal of Experimental Psychology95453–455
12.
GirgusJ SCorenSHorowitzL, 1973“Peripheral and central components in variants of the Müller-Lyer illusion”Perception and Psychophysics13157–160
13.
GreenR THoyleE M, 1963“The Poggendorff illusion as a constancy phenomenon”Nature200611
14.
GregoryR L, 1963“Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling”Nature199678–680
15.
GregoryR L, 1966Eye and Brain (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson)
16.
GregoryR L, 1967“Comments on the inappropriate constancy scaling theory of illusions and its implications”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology19219–223
17.
GregoryR L, 1968a“Visual illusions”Scientific American219 November pp 66–76
18.
GregoryR L, 1968b“Perceptual illusions and brain models”Proceedings of the Royal Society B171279–296
19.
GregoryR L, 1970
20.
HotopfW H N, 1966“The size constancy theory of visual illusions”British Journal of Psychology57307–318
21.
KristofW, 1961“Über die Einordnung geometrisch-optischen Täuschungen in den Gemassigkeiten der Visuellen Wahrnehmungen, Teil 1”Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie1131–38.
22.
LeibowitzHBrislinRPerlmutterLHennessyR, 1969“Ponzo perspective illusion as a manifestation of space perception”Science1661174–1176
23.
TauschR, 1954“Optische Täuschungen als artifizielle Effekte der Gestaltungsprozesse von Grössen-und Formenkonstanz in der natürlichen Raumwahmehmung”Psychologische Forschung24299–348
