home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Illusion - Is Seeing Really Believing?
/
Illusion - Is Seeing Really Believing (1998)(Marshall Media)[Mac-PC].iso
/
mac
/
ILLUSION
/
SROCK_TX.CXT
/
00396_Text_re53t.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-12-31
|
2KB
|
59 lines
Under these conditions, the
only basis for perceiving the
spotΓÇÖs location is our knowledge
of where the eyes are looking.
If the eyes were to be slowly
drifting when viewing a spot,
we could be tracking a spot that
was moving slowly. Perhaps
that explains why suggestion
can be effective. On hearing
that the spot is moving, say to
the right, we can imagine that
we are tracking it to the right
when, in fact, the eyes remain
stationary.
Some investigators have
argued that the autokinetic
effect results from actual eye
movements. The idea behind
this argument is simply that,
with eye movement, the image
of the spot displaces over the
retina and that retinal
displacement causes the
illusion. Such a theory is
inadequate because, as we have
seen, stationary objects do not
appear to move every time the
eyes move. Position constancy
is achieved, presumably
because retinal displacement is
discounted when the
perceptual system "knows" that
it is caused by eye movement.
For an eye-movement theory of
the autokinetic effect to be
tenable, it would have to be
maintained that the eyes move
but that the brain does not
"know" that they are moving.
One difficulty for this theory is
that it must also predict that an
entire stationary scene will
appear to move, not just an
isolated spot. I suggest that it is
not eye movement that causes
the illusion but the illusory
misperception of eye behavior.
The eyes are stationary but are
misperceived to be tracking the
(stationary) spot because the
perceptual system "believes"
for some reasonΓÇöΓÇôwhether it be
suggestion or self-suggestionΓÇöΓÇô
that the spot is drifting slowly
across the field.