Skip to main content

Much ado about mirrors michael

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.

References

  1. Block, N. J. (1974). Why do mirrors reverse right/left but not up/down?Journal of Philosophy,71, 259–277.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental rotation and the right hemisphere.Brain & Language,57, 100–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1970). Bilateral symmetry and behavior.Psychological Review,77, 451–464.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Navon, D. (1987). Why do we blame the mirror for reversing left and right?Cognition,27, 275–283.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shepard, R. N., &Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of threedimensional objects.Science,171, 701–703.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Corballis.

Additional information

I am grateful to John T. Wixted, Reg Morris, Bill Ittelson, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. Bill Ittelson continued to correspond with me, and was especially generous in helping me clarify several points, although we continue to disagree on a relatively minor issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Corballis, C. Much ado about mirrors michael. Psychon Bull Rev 7, 163–169 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210736

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mental Rotation
  • Mirror Reflection
  • Canonical Axis
  • Alphanumeric Character
  • Canonical Orientation