Comments on Assimilation Theory and the Reversed Müller—Lyer Illusion
- 1 June 1973
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Perception
- Vol. 2 (2) , 219-223
- https://doi.org/10.1068/p020219
Abstract
This paper is a comment on the preceding paper in this issue by Pressey and Bross. The author reviews his position on the reversed Müller–Lyer illusion in which the illusion is explained in terms of the ‘enclosing nature’ of the ingoing fins. The two difficulties with this explanation pointed out by Pressey and Bross are discussed. Recent experimental work on the effects of enclosures is reported. A critique of Pressey and Bross's explanation of the reversed Müller–Lyer illusion is presented.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- A TEST OF PIAGET'S EXPLANATION OF THE MÜLLER‐LYER ILLUSIONBritish Journal of Psychology, 1973
- The assimilation theory of geometric illusions: An additional postulatePerception & Psychophysics, 1972
- Explanation of the Muller-Lyer illusion: Confusion theory examined.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969
- THE REVERSE MÜLLER‐LYER ILLUSION AND ‘ENCLOSURE’British Journal of Psychology, 1968
- Reversal of the Müller-Lyer Illusion with Changes in the Length of the Inter-Fins LineQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967
- Distortion of Visual Space as Inappropriate Constancy ScalingNature, 1963
- Kinetic Frame Effects: I. Alpha MotionPerceptual and Motor Skills, 1963
- Influence of frame size on apparent length of a line.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955