Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Which of the two vertical line segments is longer? Although your visual system tells
you that the left one is longer, a ruler would confirm that they are equal in length. The
Muller-Lyer illusion is one of the most famous of illusions. It was created by German
psychiatrist Franz Muller-Lyer in 1889.
One role of an experimental psychologist is to find explanations for psychological
phenomena like the Muller-Lyer illusion, and then to perform experiments to show
whether or not the explanations are valid. Let us look at some possible explanations
for the Muller-Lyer illusion and some ways to experimentally test their validity.
The retina is saying that the two shafts are the same length but the brain is interpreting
the Muller-Lyer as a depth issue, with the shaft that looks like an outside corner being
closer and the shaft that looks like an inside corner being farther away. In other words,
the retina is saying "two shafts equal" and the brain is saying "outside shaft shorter
than inside shaft". The brain usually wins differences like this. Thus, the brain sees
as longer than .
Psychologists have attempted to support this theory that the Muller-Lyer illusion is
caused by our experiences with outside and inside corners, by showing the illusion to
an African tribe that lived in circular huts and therefore had no perceptual experiences
with corners. People in this tribe didn't seem to be fooled by the illusion thus
supporting the "experience with corners" explanation of the illusion.
A counter-study concerned a man who was completely blind (except for light
sensitivity) from the of age 3. Recently this man received a successful corneal
transplant. Studies have shown that he is impressively free from geometrical illusions
that are associated with a suggestion of depth (such as the Shepard Tables illusion
shown below -- the two table tops are the same size).
If you did this study, and you found that the illusion was the same for the group that
did the illusion with the shaft present and for the group that did the illusion with the
shaft absent, would this result invalidate the "depth" theory, or would it only show that
shafts are not necessary for depth processing?
What ways can you think of to test the "depth" theory?
This explanation suggests that the shaft ending in the inward slanting fins causes
people to perceive it as shorter because the perception of the shaft is pulled back by
the "turning back" of the fins. In other words, our eyes go out toward the point and
then come back as they follow the fin shafts back. This turning back of our eyes (or
perception) makes the shaft seem shorter. Conversely, the outward slanting fins draw
our perception on farther making that shaft seem longer.
One experimental way to test this theory is to see if flashing the illusion faster than
our eyes can move will still produce the illusion.
The result is that for the outward fins, the shaft looks longer and for the inward fins,
the shaft looks shorter.
Since this theory appears to depend on the size and length of the fins (e.g. longer fins
would move the illusion farther from the center of the fins)
and not on the distance separating the two fin heads, it is possible to experimentally
test the theory by comparing short separation comparisons of of inward and outward
fin heads with long separation comparisons (while keeping the head sizes the same).
AVERAGING THEORY
The there are two kinds of Averaging theory. The first concerns the fins, only, and
claims that the fin pair affects the perceptual system's ability to measure the shaft (or
space) distance. Specifically, it says that the Muller-Lyer judgment is based on the
average of distances enclosed by the fin pair. The average distance enclosed by the
inward fins is less than the average distance enclosed by the outward fins. Therefore,
the inward fin space looks shorter than the outward fin space.
The second averaging theory claims that the ratio of fin length to shaft length
determines the strength of illusion effect. Fin length would be subtracted from shaft
length in the inward fin part of the illusion and added to the shaft length in the
outward fin part of the illusion, thus creating the illusion.
One way to test this theory would be to have two inward half-fins on the same side
(both right or both left) of the shaft, compared with two inward half-fins on opposite
sides of the shaft (one left and one right). The ratio of fin length to shaft length would
be the same in both cases. If these different configurations produced different
magnitudes (amounts) of illusions when compared to some standard, then the
averaging theory would not be supported.