1959
DOI: 10.2307/1419510
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Satiation-Theory and the Muller-Lyer Illusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

1961
1961
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…During prolonged inspection, and these changes in eye movements should be accompanied by decrement in the perceived illusion. Selkin and Wertheimer (1957) and Mountjoy (1960) found no significant difference between the fixation and free observation in decrement of the illusion ; and Takino (1951), Morinaga (1969 and Moed (1959) Gibson (1969). According to differentiation hypothesis, decrement of the Milller-Lyer illusion may be due to a process of learning to differentiate the main line from the accessary lines and to base the perceptual judgment mostly upon the main line.…”
Section: Decrement Of the Muller-lyer Illusion Withmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…During prolonged inspection, and these changes in eye movements should be accompanied by decrement in the perceived illusion. Selkin and Wertheimer (1957) and Mountjoy (1960) found no significant difference between the fixation and free observation in decrement of the illusion ; and Takino (1951), Morinaga (1969 and Moed (1959) Gibson (1969). According to differentiation hypothesis, decrement of the Milller-Lyer illusion may be due to a process of learning to differentiate the main line from the accessary lines and to base the perceptual judgment mostly upon the main line.…”
Section: Decrement Of the Muller-lyer Illusion Withmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Also, the Mu« ller-Lyer figure with outward arrowheads is classified as an overestimation illusion and that with inward arrowheads as an underestimation illusion, each possibly influenced by different although perhaps related perceptual processes (Sekuler and Erlebacher 1971;Coren et al 1976;Day and Dickson 1976;Greist-Bousquet and Schiffman 1981). In addition to the geometrical factors, other variables such as the effect of hue and brightness (Oyama 1962;Wickelgren 1965;Cooper and Weintraub 1970;Pollack R H 1970;Weintraub and Cooper 1972;Hamburger et al 2007), age (Piaget 1969;Pollack 1970;Weintraub and Cooper 1972;Weintraub 1979), the number and duration of exposures to the illusory figure (Judd 1902;Fishback 1950a, 1950b;Mountjoy 1958;Moad 1959;Erlebacher and Sekuler 1974), and other variables (see Robinson 1998) contribute to the formation of geometric-optical illusions. Because various variables play contributory roles in the formation of geometric-optical illusions, it seems difficult to explain all illusory phenomena on the basis of a signal theory (Ninio 2001).…”
Section: Generalization Of the Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moed (128) found that reversing the left and right sides of the Muller Lyer figure on alternate trials did not change the rate at which the illusion decreases in magnitude with repeated exposure. A more rapid change in the illusion did occur when subjects were given 25 long exposures rather than 50 short exposures to the figure.…”
Section: Some Additional Psychophysical Relationsmentioning
confidence: 98%