Stereoscopic investigation of the problem of peripherally versus centrally located variables originating the geometrical illusions has not yielded clear results. However, using a modified stereoscopic procedure, the importance of central variables is clearly demonstrated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoringE. G.The physical dimensions of consciousness. New York: Dover, 1963.
2.
ChiangC.A new theory to explain geometrical illusions produced by crossing lines. Percept. & Psychophys., 1968, 3, 174–176.
3.
CooperM. R.RunyonR. P.Error increase and decrease in minimal form of Müller-Lyer illusion. Percept. mot. Skills, 1970, 31, 535–538.
4.
DayR. H.On the stereoscopic observation of geometrical illusions. Percept. mot. Skills, 1961, 13, 247–258.
5.
EaglenJ.KirkwoodB.The effect of instructions on judgment of the Mueller-Lyer illusion with normal and haptically mediated visual inspection. Percept. & Psychophys., 1970, 8, 35–36.
6.
FisherG. H.LucasA.Geometrical illusions and figural after-effects: The distorting and distorted components of illusions. Vision Res., 1970, 10, 393–404.
7.
GregoryR. L.Distortion of visual space as inappropriate constancy scaling. Nature, 1963, 199, 678–680.
8.
HelmholtzH.Handbuch der physiologischen Optik. Hamburg: Voss, 1896, 1866.
9.
KöhlerW.WallachH.Figural after-effects: An investigation of visual processes. Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 1944, 88, 269–357.
10.
McDougallW.The physiological factors of the attention process: III. Mind, 1903, 12, 473–488.
11.
MotokawaK.Field of retinal induction and optical illusion. J. Neurophysiol., 1950, 13, 413–426.
12.
OhwakiS.On the destruction of geometrical illusions in stereoscopic observation. Tohoku psychol. fol., 1960, 29, 29–36.
13.
OverR.Explanations of geometrical illusions. Psychol. Bull., 1968, 70, 545–562.
14.
SchillerP.WienerM.Binocular and stereoscopic viewing of geometrical illusions. Percept. mot. Skills, 1962, 15, 739–747.
15.
SpringbettB. M.Some stereoscopic phenomena and their implications. Brit. J. Psychol., 1961, 52, 105–109.
