Holding (1970) described a version of the Müller-Lyer illusion in which the arrowheads point in the same direction. This does not produce a change in the apparent length, but a shift in the apparent position of the shafts. Current models of the Müller-Lyer illusion based on hypothetical length-processing mechanisms cannot explain this position shift. An alternative explanation is that both versions of the illusion result from an additive displacement of the endpoints of the shafts. Measurement of both illusions using a group of 32 subjects indicated that a greater endpoint shift is needed to account for the strength of the standard length version of the illusion. Some possible reasons for this difference are suggested, and the implications for future theories of this class of illusions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrigellM.UhlarikJ. (1979). The relational determination of length illusions and length aftereffects.Perception8, 187–197.
2.
BrigellM.UhlarikJ.GoldhornP. (1977). Contextual influences on judgements of linear extent.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3, 105–118.
3.
CarlsonC. R.AndersonC. H.MoellerJ. (1980). Visual illusions without low spatial frequencies.Investigative Opthalmology and Visual Science19, 165.
4.
CornsweetT. N. (1962). The staircase method in psychophysics.American Journal of Psychology75, 485–491.
5.
DayR. H.DickinsonR. G. (1976). Apparent length of the arms of acute and obtuse angles, and the components of the Müller-Lyer illusion.Australian Journal of Psychology28, 137–148.
6.
DayR. H.BellamyS.NormanA. (1983). On the Morinaga misalignment illusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance9, 113–125.
7.
DeValoisR. L.DeValoisK. K. (1980). Spatial vision.Annual Review of Psychology31, 309–341.
8.
FellowsB. J. (1968). The reverse Müller-Lyer illusion and “enclosure.”.British Journal of Psychology59, 369–372.
9.
FisherG. H. (1968). The frameworks for perceptual localisationDepartment of Psychology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
10.
GregoryR. L. (1963). Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling.Nature199, 678–680.
11.
GregoryR. L. (1966). Eye and brainLondon: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
12.
HoldingD. H. (1970). A line illusion with irrelevant depth cues.American Journal of Psychology83, 280–282.
13.
HowardR. B.EvansG. (1971). Some evidence for the size-distortion explanations of illusions.Psychonomic Science23, 129–130.
14.
HubelD. H.WeiselT. N. (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex.Journal of Physiology (London)195, 215–243.
15.
JaegerT. (1980). Delbouef illusions—contour or size interaction?.Perceptual and Motor Skills50, 376–378.
16.
JuleszB.SchumerR. A. (1981). Early visual perception.Annual Review of Psychology32, 575–627.
17.
MachE. (1959). The analysis of sensationsMNew York: Dover Publications. (Originally published (C. Williams, trans.)1914.
18.
MaddenT. M. (1981). Inappropriate constancy scaling and the Müller-Lyer illusion.Perceptual and Motor Skills52, 211–218.
19.
MorinagaS.IkedaH. (1965). Paradox of displacement in geometrical illusion and the problem of dimensions—A contribution to the study of space perception.Japanese Journal of Psychology36, 231–238.
20.
OyamaT. (1960). Japanese studies on the so-called geometrical optical illusions.Psychologia3, 7–20.
21.
OyamaT. (1977). Feature analysers, optical illusions, and figural aftereffects.Perception6, 401–406.
22.
PollackR. H.ChaplinM. R. (1964). Effects of prolonged stimulation by components of the Müller-Lyer figure upon the magnitude of the illusion.Perceptual and Motor Skills18, 377–382.
23.
PresseyA. W. (1967). A theory of the Müller-Lyer illusion.Perceptual and Motor Skills25, 569–572.
24.
PresseyA. W. (1971). An extension of assimilation theory to illusions of size, area and direction.Perception and Psychophysics9, 172–176.
25.
PresseyA. W.Di LolloV.TaitR. W. (1977). Effects of gap size between shaft and fins end of angle of fins on the Müller-Lyer illusion.Perception6, 435–439.
26.
RestleF. (1976). Morinaga's paradox and figure-ground organization.Perception and Psychophysics20, 153–156.
27.
RestleF. (1978). Relativity and organization in visual size judgements.LeeuwenbergE. L. J.BuffartH. F. J. M.Formal theories of visual perception.Chichester: Wiley.
28.
RestleF.DeckerJ. (1977). Size of the Müeller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions: Theory and data.Perception and Psychophysics21, 489–503.
29.
RobinsonJ. O. (1972). The psychology of visual illusionLondon: Hutchinson.
30.
RockI. (1975). An introduction to perceptionNew York: Macmillan and Company.
31.
TayaR. (1971). The concentric circle illusion and the “object” character.Japanese Journal of Psychology42, 256–265.
32.
WarrenR. M.BashfordJ. A. (1977). Müller-Lyer illusions: Their origin in processes facilitating object recognition.Perception6, 615–626.
33.
YokoseZ.KawamuraH. (1952). A study of the direction of the field force in shape perception.Japanese Journal of Psychology23, 133–143.
