Stimulus Determinants of the Magnitude of the Mueller-Lyer Illusion

Dewar, R E

doi:10.2466/pms.1967.24.3.708

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Line length and arrowhead angle (e.g., Dewar, 1967;Greene & Nelson, 1997) and practice and exposure duration (Mountjoy, 1958), as well as hue (Pollack, 1970), have been found to affect the magnitude of the illusion. To our knowledge, the similarity in color between the shafts and the arrowheads has been manipulated in only one study (Mukerji, 1957), and despite great variability across subjects and color pairs, the general finding was that the illusion decreased when the colors of the shafts and the arrowheads differed, relative to when they were the same.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grouping does not require attention

Lamy

Segal

Ruderman

2006

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grouping does not require attention

Lamy

Segal

Ruderman

2006

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This paper does not join in the tradition of dismissing earlier work on vague methodological grounds, as do Dewar (1967) and Lewis (1909), and especially would not criticize the exceptionally well-organized studies of Heymans (1896). It appears that, in this area of research, one should attempt a reconciliation of all of the relevant data with any theoretical proposals.…”

Section: Length Of Inner Wing (Mm-iog Spacing)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Size of the Mueller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions: Theory and data

Restle

Decker

1977

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Unfortunately, the specific pattern of variation is somewhat ambiguous. Several investigators have reported that as the angle between the wings becomes smaller, the magnitude of the illusion increases monotonically (Dewar, 1967;Heymans, 1896;Lewis, 1909).…”

Section: Demonstration 4: Angle Changes and Center Of Gravitymentioning

confidence: 99%

An efferent component in the visual perception of direction and extent.

Coren¹

1986

Psychological Review

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After outlining the history of motor theories of visual perception, a new theory linking information extraction patterns, specifically adapted for the guidance of eye movements, to the visual perception of direction and extent is presented. Following a brief discussion of comparative and physiological considerations, a research strategy to test for efferent involvement in visual perception in humans is presented. In seven demonstration experiments, predictions from efferent considerations are used to create a new set of illusions of direction and extent and to demonstrate new predictable variations in the magnitude of some classical illusion figures. Another demonstration illustrates that systematic changes in visual perception occur as a function of changes in motoric demands, even in the absence of any configurational changes in the stimulus. A final section shows the relationship between attention and efferent readiness and their interaction in the formation of the conscious visual percept.From a historical perspective, most contemporary theories of visual perception are quite conservative. This conservatism springs from an apparent acceptance of the premise that any proper analysis of visual experience must avoid reference to nonvisual mechanisms, except for labeling and semantic aspects of the perceptual process. It follows that most visual theorists tend to derive virtually every aspect of the conscious percept solely from either the physical characteristics of the visual stimulus array or the operation of readily definable neurological units in the visual system.Characteristic of the former viewpoint is Gibson's (1979) theory of ecological optics, which maintains that virtually all aspects of the final percept are predictable from invariants in the stimulus array. Current attempts to derive the conscious percept from a hypothesized Fourier analysis occurring within the visual system are similar in approach, merely relying on higher level processing of the physical stimulus (e.g., Weisstein & Harris, 1980). Using the current literature as an index, the only seemingly acceptable alternative to derivation of the final percept directly from physical stimulus properties is to adopt a neuroreductionist approach. Here the investigator is expected to isolate specific neural units or channels that are then held to account for each aspect of the the final subjective percept (e.g., Graham, Robson, & Nachmias, 1978;Hubel, 1978). Although the above-mentioned approaches have a certain allure, providing concrete mechanisms and clearly calculable stimulus parameters on which to rest conclusions, there are some alternative theoretical treatments of visual perception, which do allow This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. loo many people have helped shape the ideas contained in this article to be acknowledged separately. However, two who deserve special thanks are Clare Porac and Joan S. Girgus.

show abstract

Stimulus Determinants of the Magnitude of the Mueller-Lyer Illusion

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Grouping does not require attention

Grouping does not require attention

Size of the Mueller-Lyer illusion as a function of its dimensions: Theory and data

An efferent component in the visual perception of direction and extent.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About