Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 321–338 | Cite as

The Muller-Lyer illusion explained and its theoretical importance reconsidered

  • Bob Bermond
  • Jaap Van Heerden
Article

Abstract

The Müller-Lyer illusion is the natural consequence of the construction of the vertebrate eye, retina and visual processing system. Due to imperfections in the vertebrate eye and retina and due to the subsequent processing in the system by ever increasing receptive fields, the visual information becomes less and less precise with respect to exact location and size. The consequence of this is that eventually the brain has to calculate ‘a weighted mean value’ of the information, which is spread out over a population of neurons. In the case of the Müller-Lyer illusion this inevitably leads to extension of one and reduction of the other line. The arguments presented explain several published experimental results concerning the Müller-Lyer illusion and shed new light upon the philosophical neutrality of observation sentences.

Key words

Müller-Lyer illusion visual processing observation sentences theory-ladenness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auerbach, F.: 1894, ‘Erklärung der Brentanoschen optischen Täuschung’,Zeitschrift für Psychologie III, 498–504.Google Scholar
  2. Brentano, F.: 1889, ‘Optische Urteilstäuschungen’,Dubois-Reymonds Archiv für Physiologie VII, 263–270.Google Scholar
  3. Churchland, P.: 1988, ‘Perpetual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor’,Philosophy of Science 55, 167–187.Google Scholar
  4. Coren, S. and Girgus, J.S.: 1978,Seeing is Deceiving, Erlbaum, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  5. Cowey, A. and Stroerig, P.: 1992, ‘Reflexions on Blindsight’, in A.D. Milner and M.D. Rugg (eds),The Neuropsychology of Consciousness, Academic Press, London, pp. 11–37.Google Scholar
  6. Dennett, D.: 1978,Brainstorms, Harvester Press, Hassocks.Google Scholar
  7. Ebbinghaus, H.: 1913,Grundzüge der Psychologie, Ullmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  8. Fodor, J.A.: 1983,The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J.A.: 1984, ‘Observation Reconsidered’,Philosophy of Science 51, 23–43.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J.A.: 1988, ‘A Reply to Churchland's Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality’,Philosophy of Science 55, 188–198.Google Scholar
  11. Galambos, R. Norton, T.T., and Frommer, G.P.: 1967, ‘Optic Tract Lesions Sparing Pattern Vision in Cats’,Experimental Neurology 18, 8–25.Google Scholar
  12. Goldberg, M.E., Eggers, H.M. and Gouras, P.: 1991, ‘The Ocular Motor System’, in E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz and T.M. Jessell (eds.),Principles of Neural Science. Elsevier., New York, 3rd ed., Amsterdam, pp. 660–680.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, R.L.: 1970,The Intelligent Eye, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
  14. Heymans, G.: 1895, ‘Quantitative Untersuchungen ueber das “Optisches Paradoxon”’,Zeitschrift für Psychologie IX, 221–255.Google Scholar
  15. Hubel, D.H.: 1988,Eye Brain and Vision, The Scientific American Library, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hubel, D.H. and Wiesel, T.N.: 1977, ‘Functional Architecture of Macaque Monkey Visual Cortex’,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 198, 1–59.Google Scholar
  17. Kalat, J.W.: 1992,Biological Psychology, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  18. Kandel, E.R.: 1991, ‘Perception of Motion, Fepth, and Gorm’, in E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz and T.M. Jessell (eds.),Principles of Neural Science 3rd ed, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 400–465.Google Scholar
  19. Kandel, E.R. and Jessell, T.M.: 1991, ‘Touch’, in E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwarzz and T.M. Jessell: 1991,Principles of Neural Science, Elsevier, New York, Amsterdam, pp. 367–385.Google Scholar
  20. Lipps, Th.: 1892, ‘Zu Fr.Brentano's “Ueber ein Optisches Paradoxon”’,Zeitschrift für Psychologie III, 498–504.Google Scholar
  21. Mahowald. M.A. and Mead, M.P.: 1991, ‘The Silicon Retina: A Chip Based on the Neural Architecture of the Eye Proves a New, More Powerful Way of Doing Computations’,Scientific American 5, 40–46.Google Scholar
  22. Müller-Lyer, F.C.: 1889, ‘Optiche Urteilstäuschungen’,Dubois-Reymonds Archiv für Physiologie VII, 263–270.Google Scholar
  23. Müller-Lyer, F.C.: 1896, ‘Ueber Kontrast und Konfluxion’,Zeitschift für Psychologie X, 421–431.Google Scholar
  24. Quine, W.V.O.: 1993, ‘In Praise of Observation Sentences’,Journal of Philosophy 3, 107–117.Google Scholar
  25. Révész, G.: 1934, ‘System der optischen und haptischen Raumtäuschungen’,Zeitschrift für Psychologie 131, 296–375.Google Scholar
  26. Rhodes, R. and Planzer, R.: 1989,Human Physiology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Orlando.Google Scholar
  27. Rock, I.: 1984,Perception, Freeman & Co, New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Routenberg, A.: 1980, ‘Redundency in the Nervous System as Substrate for Consciousness: Relation to Anatomy and Chemistry of Remembering’, in J.M. Davidson and R.J. Davidson (eds.),The Psychobiology of Consciousness, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar
  29. Segall, M.H., Campbell, D.T., and Herskovits, M.J.: 1963, ‘Cultural Differences in the Perception of Geometric Illusions’,Science 139, 769–771.Google Scholar
  30. Tessier-Lavigne, M.: 1991, ‘Phototransduction and Information Processing in the Retina’, in E.R. Kandel, J.H. Schwartz and T.M. Jessell (eds.),Principles of Neuroscience, 3rd ed., Elsevier, New York, Amsterdam, pp. 400–420.Google Scholar
  31. Van den Berg, T.J.T.P.: 1990, ‘Intraoculair strooilincht’,Klinische Fysica 4, 139–142.Google Scholar
  32. Van den Berg, T.J.T.P., IJspeert, J.K. and De Waard, P.W.T.: 1991, ‘Dependence of Intraocular Straylight on Pigmentation and Light Transmission through the Ocular Wall’,Vision Research 31, 1361–1367.Google Scholar
  33. Van Heerden, J. and Draaisma, D.: 1992, ‘De Müller-Lyer Illusie’, in D. Draaisma (ed.),Een Laboratorium voor de Ziel, Historische Uitgeverij, Groningen, pp. 40–52.Google Scholar
  34. Van Norren, D. and Tiemeijer, L.F.: 1986, ‘Spectral Reflectance of the Human Eye’,Vision Research 26, 313–320.Google Scholar
  35. Weikrantz, L., Wattington, E.K., Sanders, M.D. and Marchal, J.: 1974, ‘Visual Capacity in the Hemianoptic Field Following a Restricted Occipital Ablation’,Brain 97, 709–728.Google Scholar
  36. Wundt, W.: 1893,Grundzüge der Physiologische Psychologie, Verlag von Wilhem Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  37. Zeki, S.: 1992, ‘The Visual Image in Mind and Brain’,Scientific American, September, 69–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bob Bermond
    • 1
  • Jaap Van Heerden
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations