Errors in Judging Information about Reflections in Mirrors

We investigated people's perception and knowledge of planar mirror reflections. People were accurate at deciding when they could first see their reflection as they approached a mirror from the side, but only if their reflection was visible. Most people stopped too early if the mirror was covered up. People also overestimated the size of the reflection of their face on the surface of a mirror if they were shown a covered mirror. Their accuracy improved somewhat if their reflection was visible but, unlike the first task, they still made striking errors. Perceptual feedback thus improved performance at predicting the behaviour of mirror reflections in both tasks but failed to eliminate errors in the second task. The overestimation of reflection size was not face-specific as it generalised to novel stimuli (paper ellipses) and it was found with both a matching response and for verbal size estimations. The early error in the first task appears to be due to an inaccurate belief that can be overridden by perceptual feedback. The overestimation in the second task is primarily caused by a powerful size-constancy effect.

[1]  G. Winer,et al.  Development in the Understanding of Perception: The Decline of Extramission Perception Beliefs. , 1994 .

[2]  A. Higashiyama,et al.  Estimation of height for persons in pictures , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  H. Hecht,et al.  Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  R N Haber,et al.  The independence of size perception and distance perception , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  J C Baird,et al.  Transformation theory of size judgment. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  H. Kaneko,et al.  Perceived Angular and Linear Size: The Role of Binocular Disparity and Visual Surround , 1997, Perception.

[7]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  T. Espinoza,et al.  Mirror feedback and judgments of body size. , 1989, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[9]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Intuitive physics: the straight-down belief and its origin. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  G. Winer,et al.  Conditions affecting beliefs about visual perception among children and adults. , 1996, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[11]  A. Higashiyama,et al.  Mirror vision: Perceived size and perceived distance of virtual images , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Marco Bertamini,et al.  The Venus Effect: People's Understanding of Mirror Reflections in Paintings , 2003, Perception.

[13]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Understanding wheel dynamics , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  W N Charman,et al.  Size constancy and angular size matching in size perception of near objects. , 1999, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[15]  C. Fairburn,et al.  Body size estimation: testing a new mirror-based assessment method. , 2003, The International journal of eating disorders.

[16]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naive beliefs about the motion of objects. , 1980, Science.

[17]  M. Bertamini,et al.  Understanding projectile acceleration. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  M. Robert.  The gender difference in orienting liquid surfaces and plumb-lines: its robustness, its correlates, and the associated knowledge of simple physics. , 1996, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[19]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[20]  Heiko Hecht,et al.  Naive optics: understanding the geometry of mirror reflections. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  John M Foley,et al.  Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space , 2004, Vision Research.

[22]  Lynn S. Liben,et al.  Illusory Tilt and Euclidean Schemes as Factors in Performance on the Water-Level Task , 1995 .

[23]  Rebecca Lawson,et al.  The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[24]  R. Shepard.  Mind sights: Original visual illusions, ambiguities, and other anomalies, with a commentary on the play of mind in perception and art , 1990 .

[25]  Heiko Hecht,et al.  Naive optics: Predicting and perceiving reflections in mirrors. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Marco Bertamini,et al.  On what people know about images on mirrors , 2005, Cognition.

[27]  A. S. Gilinsky,et al.  The effect of attitude upon the perception of size. , 1955, The American journal of psychology.

[28]  W. Epstein.  Stability and constancy in visual perception : mechanisms and processes , 1977 .

[29]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  Size effects in visual recognition memory are determined by perceived size , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[30]  Heiko Hecht,et al.  Naive optics: acting on mirror reflections. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.