Retinal Size as a Determiner of the Direction of Size Distortion in Figural After-Effects

Abstract

When dealing with size distortions, the direction of the distortion is determined by the retinal size of the T-figure with respect to the retinal size of the I-figure. When the T-figure is retinally smaller than the I-figure it is distorted toward appearing even smaller; when it is retinally larger than the I-figure it is distorted toward appearing even larger; and when the two are retinally equal, there is no distortion. If the T-figures are too much larger or smaller than the I-figure, the distortion ceases. The traditional distance paradox is observed where the distance is defined retinally. The apparent size of the figures is irrelevant to a prediction of what sort of distortion takes place. Sutherland's hypothesis that apparent size determines the direction of distortion when retinal sizes are equated is not supported.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

K. T.

(1953a). Methodology for studying figural after-effects and practice effects in the Müller-Lyer illusion. Amer. J. Psychol. 66, 629–34.

Brown

K. T.

(1953b). Factors affecting differences in apparent size between opposite halves of a visual meridian. J. opt. Soc. Amer. 43, 464–72.

Fox

(1951). Figural after-effects: “satiation” and “adaptation.”. J. exp. Psychol. 42, 317–26.

Gibson

J. J.

(1937). Adaptation with negative after-effect. Psychol. Rev. 44, 222–43.

Hochberg

Bitterman

(1951). Figural after-effects as a function of the retinal size of the inspection figure. Amer. J. Psychol. 64, 99–102.

Köhler

(1940). Dynamics in Psychology. New York.

Köhler

Wallach

(1944). Figural after-effects: an investigation of visual processes. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 88, 269–357.

McNemar

(1955). Psychological Statistics. New York.

Osgood

Heyer

(1952). A new interpretation of figural after-effects. Psychol. Rev. 59, 98–118.

10.

Pollack

R. H.

(1958). Figural after-effects: quantitative studies of displacement. Aust. J. Psychol. 10, 269–77.

11.

Prentice

W. H. C.

(1947). The relation of distance to the apparent size of figural after-effects. Amer. J. Psychol. 60, 617–23.

12.

Prentice

W. H. C.

(1950). On the size of figural after-effect with varying distances. Amer. J. Psychol. 63, 589–93.

13.

Seagrim

G. N.

(1957). A further examination of non-satiational figural after-effects. Aust. J. Psychol. 9, 20–32.

14.

Seagrim

G. N.

(1958). Non-satiational figural after-effects supplementary report. Aust. J. Psychol. 10, 364–5.

15.

Sutherland

N. S.

(1954). Figural after-effects, retinal size and apparent size. Quart. J. exp. Psychol. 6, 35–44.