Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 163–169 | Cite as

Much ado about mirrors michael

  • C. Corballis
Theoretical Notes

Abstract

Takano (1998) has suggested four different kinds of reversal to explain why mirrors reverse left and right and not up and down or back and front. In fact, mirrors perform only one kind of reversal: They simply reverse about their own planes, and reflection about one plane is equivalent to reflection about any other, plus a translocation and rotation. The reflection of an object is termed its enantiomorph. Perception of the enantiomorphic relation normally requires an act, either physical or mental, of alignment. In deciding whether two objects are enantiomorphs, there is a tendency to align them so that the reversal is about the axis of least asymmetry. But in deciding whether a single object is one of two possible enantiomorphic forms, people generally rotate it to some canonical orientation. In the case of objects with defined top-bottom, back-front, and left-right axes, the canonical orientation is determined by the top-bottom and back-front axes, leaving the left-right axis to carry the reversal. The main reason for this, I suggest, is that the top-bottom and back-front axes have functional priority, and the left-right axis cannot be defined until top-bottom and back-front are established. This means that the latter two axes have priority in establishing the canonical orientation. The left-right axis is usually, but not always, the axis of least asymmetry.

Keywords

Mental Rotation Mirror Reflection Canonical Axis Alphanumeric Character Canonical Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Block, N. J. (1974). Why do mirrors reverse right/left but not up/down?Journal of Philosophy,71, 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll, L. (1872).Through the looking glass, and what Alice found there. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, L. A., &Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In W. G. Chase (Eds.),Visual information processing (pp. 75–176). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Corballis, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes.Psychological Review,95, 115–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental rotation and the right hemisphere.Brain & Language,57, 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1970). Bilateral symmetry and behavior.Psychological Review,77, 451–464.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1976).The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Corballis, M. C., &McLaren, R. (1984). Winding one’sps andqs: Mental rotation and mirror-image discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardner, M. (1964).The ambidextrous universe. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Gregory, R. (1998).Mirrors in mind. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Hertz, R. (1960).Death and the right hand. Aberdeen: Cohen & West.Google Scholar
  12. Ittelson, W. H., Mowafy, L., &Magid, D. (1991). The perception of mirror-reflected objects.Perception,20, 567–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kant, I. (1997).Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that will be able to come forward as science (G. Hatfield, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published c. 1783)Google Scholar
  14. Lee, T. D., &Yang, C. D. (1956). Questions of parity conservation in weak interactions.Physical Review,104, 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Navon, D. (1987). Why do we blame the mirror for reversing left and right?Cognition,27, 275–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shepard, R. N., &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects.Science,171, 701–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Takano, Y. (1998). Why does a mirror image look left-right reversed? A hypothesis of multiple processes.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AucklandAuckland

Personalised recommendations