Abstract
This paper proposes a solution to the mirror reversal problem: Why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down? The paper first reviews past hypotheses and shows that none of them has succeeded in explaining all the related phenomena. It then proposes a multiprocess hypothesis based on the insight that what is called a mirror reversal is actually composed of three different types of reversal: The Type I reversal is produced by the discrepancy between an orientational framework that is aligned with a viewer’s body and the one that is assumed in the viewer’s mirror image; the Type II reversal is produced by the discrepancy between the mental representation of an object and its mirror image; and the Type III reversal is produced by a mirror’s optical transformation. The proposed hypothesis is shown to provide reasonable accounts for all the related phenomena disputed in the past literature.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bennett, J. (1970). The difference between right and left.American Philosophical Quarterly,7, 175–191.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Block, N. J. (1974). Why do mirrors reverse right/left but not up/down?Journal of Philosophy,71, 259–277.
Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1976).The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gallistel, C. R. (1994). Space and time. In N. J. Mackintosh (Ed.),Animal learning and cognition (pp. 221–253). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gardner, M. (1964).The ambidextrous universe. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, M. (1990).The ambidextrous universe (3rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s.
Golledge, R. G. (1986). Environmental cognition. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 131–174). New York: Wiley
Gregory, R. L. (1987). Mirror reversal. In R. L. Gregory (Ed.),The Oxford companion to the mind (pp. 491–493). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haig, N. D. (1993). Reflections on inversion and reversion.Perception,22, 863–868.
Hinton, G. E., &Parsons, L. M. (1981). Frames of reference and mental imagery. In A. Baddeley & J. Long (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 261–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ittelson, W. H., Mowafy, L., &Magid, D. (1991). The perception of mirror-reflected objects.Perception,20, 567–584.
Kozlowski, L. T., &Bryant, K. J. (1977). Sense of direction, spatial orientation, and cognitive maps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 590–598.
Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Marr, D., &Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B,200, 269–294.
Mayo, B. (1958). The incongruity of counterparts.Philosophy of Science,25, 109–115.
Morris, R. C. (1993). Mirror image reversal: Is what we see what we present?Perception,22, 869–876.
Navon, D. (1987). Why do we blame the mirror for reversing left and right?Cognition,27, 275–283.
Pears, D. (1952). The incongruity of counterparts.Mind,61, 78–81.
Piaget, J., &Inhelder, B. (1956).The child’s conception of space (F. J. Langton & J. L. Lunzer, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1948)
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery.Psychological Bulletin,80, 1–24
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984).Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rock, I. (1973).Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.
Rock, I., Schreiber, C., &Ro, T. (1994). The dependence of twodimensional shape perception on orientation.Perception,23, 1409–1426.
Shepard, R. N., &Cooper, L. A. (1982).Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shepard, R. N., &Hurwitz, S. (1984). Upward direction, mental rotation, and discrimination of left and right turns in maps.Cognition,18, 161–193.
Shepard, R. N., &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects.Science,171, 701–703.
Takano, Y. (1989). Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types.Cognitive Psychology,21, 1–59.
Thomas, D. E. (1980). Mirror images.American Scientist,243, 158–172.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Y.T. is grateful to Ulric Neisser for his warm support concerning the present paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Takano, Y. Why does a mirror image look left-right reversed? A hypothesis of multiple processes. Psychon Bull Rev 5, 37–55 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209456
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209456