SOME OBSERVATIONS ON GREGORYS THEORY OF PERCEPTUAL ILLUSIONS
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON GREGORYS THEORY OF PERCEPTUAL ILLUSIONS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14640746708400092
复制
发表时间：
1967-01-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
ZANFORLI.M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
ZANFORLI.M
Gregory（1963，1965，1966）曾将Muller-Lyer类型的光学错觉解释为一种他称之为“初级恒常标度”的知觉机制的误用。尽管纸的纹理使观察者看到的图形是平的，但这种机制是由绘画的深度特征引起的。它来自于关于图形的相互冲突的信息，即深度特征（三维）和纹理（平面），这是众所周知的现象，这些幻想出现。（Brown和Houssiad，1964; Humphrey和Morgan，1965; Day，1965;汉密尔顿，1966;华莱士，1966年）并没有出现，以满足所有怀疑他的理论，这是适当的，以详细考虑某些基本点的理论，没有提出由以前的批评。很明显，如果初级恒常性标度是由平面图形的深度特征设定的（格雷戈里，1963），那么为了预测恒常性标度在哪些图形中会起作用并产生错觉，我们需要对深度特征进行精确定义。但没有正式或精确的定义，也没有格雷戈里明确确定的情况下，他们发生。深度特征是什么根本不是不言自明的。Gregory（1963）说，当一幅图画是一个三维物体的透视表示或投影时，它就具有深度特征。这对我们没有多大帮助，因为任何绘画都可以被视为至少一个其他人物在“深度”上的投影。例如，假设图I B具有深度
Gregory (1963, 1965, 1966) has explained the optical iIlusions of the Muller-Lyer type as a misapplication of a perceptual mechanism which he calls “primary constancy scaling.” This mechanism is brought into action by the depth features of the drawing, despite the fact that the texture of the paper makes the observer see the figure as flat. It is from the conflicting information about the figure, namely, the depth features (three-dimensionality) and the texture (flat), that the well-known phenomenon of these illusions arises.As Gregory’s replies to some criticisms (Brown and Houssiad, 1964; Humphrey and Morgan, 1965; Day, 1965; Hamilton, 1966; Wallace, 1966) do not appear to satisfy all doubts about his theory, it is opportune to consider in detail certain basic points of the theory which have not been raised by previous critics. It seems obvious that if primary constancy scaling is set by the depth features of flat figures (Gregory, 1963), then in order to predict in which figures constancy scaling will enter into action and produce illusion, we need an exact definition of depth features. But no formal or precise definition is given, nor does Gregory determine unequivocably the circumstances in which they occur. What depth features are is not at all self-evident. Gregory (1963) speaks of a drawing as having depth features when it is a perspective representation or a projection of a three-dimensional object. This does not help us very much as any drawing whatsoever may be regarded as the projection of at least one other figure in “depth.” If, for example, one supposes that Figure I b has depth