The basic conceptions used in the literature for the explanation of the stereokinetic cone illusion are examined and shown to contain an important flaw which concerns the presumed equivalence of retinal images projected by 2- versus 3-dimensional structures. Upon showing that such equivalence does not prevail, two hypotheses are proposed, pointing out that the illusion must arise from inherent characteristics of the nervous system and their interaction with the stimulus at critical parameters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraunsteinM. L. (1976) Depth perception through motion. New York: Academic Press.
2.
CuttingJ. E. (1987) Perception and information. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 61–90.
3.
GibsonJ. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
JohanssonG. (1978) About the geometry underlying spontaneous visual decoding of the optical message. In LeeuwenbergE.BuffartH. (Eds.), Formal theories of visual perception. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Pp. 265–276.
5.
MusattiC. L. (1924) Sui fenomeni stereocineticiArchivio Italiano di Psicologia, 3, 105–120.
6.
RobinsonJ. O.PigginsD. J.WilsonJ. A. (1985) Shape, height, and angular movement in stereokinesis. Perception, 14, 677–683.
7.
ToddJ. T. (1984) The perception of three-dimensional structure from rigid and nonrigid motion. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 97–103.
8.
UllmanS. (1979) The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
ZanforlinM. (1988) The height of a stereokinetic cone: A quantitative determination of a 3-D effect from 2-D moving patterns without a “rigidity assumption.”Psychological Research, 50, 162–172.
