Exception is taken to the conclusion that the terrestrial-passage theory ignores the immediacy of the experience of the moon illusion and is therefore to be rejected. The meaning of immediacy and the definition of the illusion as a horizon enlargement are examined critically. In demonstrating that immediacy is not ignored, the passage theory is restated, with special attention to potential tests of the theory in explaining individual differences and related phenomena.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EnrightJ T, 1989“The eye, the brain, and the size of the moon: Toward a unified oculomotor hypothesis for the moon illusion”, in The Moon Illusion Ed. HershensonM, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 59–121
2.
McCreadyD, 1986“Moon illusions redescribed”Perception and Psychophysics3964–72
3.
LockheadG RWolbarshtM L, 1989“The moon and other toys”, in The Moon Illusion Ed. HershensonM, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 259–266
4.
PlugCRossH E, 1994“The natural moon illusion: A multifactor angular account”Perception23321–333
5.
ReedC F, 1984“Terrestrial passage theory of the moon illusion”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General113489–500
6.
ReedC FKrupinskiE A, 1992“The target in the celestial (moon) illusion”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18247–256
