Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:14:58.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anisotropy and polarization of space: Evidence from naïve optics and phenomenological psychophysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

Ivana Bianchi  and
Marco Bertamini
Ivana Bianchi
Affiliation:
Department of Humanities, University of Macerata, 62100 Macerata, Italy. ivana.bianchi@unimc.ithttp://docenti.unimc.it/docenti/ivana-bianchi
Marco Bertamini
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. m.bertamini@liv.ac.ukhttp://www.liv.ac.uk/vp/marco.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Additional evidence is presented concerning the anisotropy between vertical and horizontal encoding, which emerges from studies of human perception and cognition of space in plane mirror reflections. Moreover, it is suggested that the non-metric characteristic of polarization – that Jeffery et al. discuss with respect to gravity – is not limited to the vertical dimension.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 545 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertamini, M., Lawson, R., Jones, L. & Winters, M. (2010) The Venus effect in real life and in photographs. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 72(7):1948–64. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.7.1948.Google Scholar
Bertamini, M., Spooner, A. & Hecht, H. (2003) Naïve optics: Predicting and perceiving reflections in mirrors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 29(5):982–1002. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.982.Google Scholar
Bertamini, M. & Wynne, L. (2009) The tendency to overestimate what is visible in a planar mirror amongst adults and children. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 22:516–28. doi: 10.1080/09541440902934087.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Burro, R., Torquati, S. & Savardi, U. (2013) The middle of the road: Perceiving intermediates. Acta Psychologica 144(1):121–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bianchi, I. & Savardi, U. (2008) The relationship perceived between the real body and the mirror image. Perception 5:666–87.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I. & Savardi, U. (2012a) The cognitive dimensions of contrariety. In: The square of opposition. A general framework for cognition, ed. Bezieau, J.-Y. & Payette, G., pp. 443–70. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I. & Savardi, U. (2012b) What fits into a mirror: Naïve beliefs on the field of view of mirrors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38(5):1144–58. doi: 10.1037/a0027035.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U. & Burro, R. (2011a) Perceptual ratings of opposite spatial properties: Do they lie on the same dimension? Acta Psychologica 138(3):405–18. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.08.003.Google Scholar
Bianchi, I., Savardi, U. & Kubovy, M. (2011b) Dimensions and their poles: A metric and topological theory of opposites. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(8):1232–65. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2010.520943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, W., Longo, M. R. & Bertenthal, B. I. (2012) Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus-response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities. Acta Psychologica 139(3):440–48. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.00.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1993) “Uphill” and “downhill” in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(1):46–74.Google Scholar
Chan, A. H. S. & Chan, K. W. L. (2005) Spatial S-R compatibility of visual and auditory signals: Implications for human–machine interface design. Displays 26(3):109–19.Google Scholar
Cornelis, E. V., van Doorn, A. J. & Wagemans, J. (2009) The effects of mirror reflections and planar rotations of pictures on the shape percept of the depicted object. Perception 38(10):1439–66.Google Scholar
Croucher, C. J., Bertamini, M. & Hecht, H. (2002) Naïve optics: Understanding the geometry of mirror reflections. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28:546–62. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.28.3.546.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986) Lexical semantics. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, E. & McCloskey, M. (2010) Mirror-image confusions: Implications for representation and processing of object orientation. Cognition 116(1):110–29. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.005.Google Scholar
Hill, C. (1982) Up/down, front/back, left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. In: Here and there: Crosslinguistic studies on deixis and demonstration, ed. Weissenborn, J. & Klein, W., pp. 11–42. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kubovy, M. (2002) Phenomenology, psychological. In: Encyclopedia of cognitive science, ed. Nadel, L., pp. 579–86. Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Kubovy, M. & Gepshtein, S. (2003) Grouping in space and in space-time: An exercise in phenomenological psychophysics. In: Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives, ed. Kimchi, R., Behrmann, M. & Olson, C. R., pp. 45–86. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roswarski, T. E. & Proctor, R. W. (1996) Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice reaction tasks. Psychological Research 59:196–211.Google Scholar
Savardi, U. & Bianchi, I. (2009) The spatial path to contrariety. In: The perception and cognition of contraries, ed. Savardi, U., pp. 63–92. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Savardi, U., Bianchi, I. & Bertamini, M. (2010) Naive prediction of orientation and motion in mirrors. From what we see to what we expect reflections to do. Acta Psychologica 134(1):1–15. doi: 10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2009.11.008.Google Scholar
Umiltà, C. & Nicoletti, R. (1990) Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In: Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective, ed. Proctor, R. W. & Reeve, T. G., pp. 89–116. North Holland (Elsevier Science Publishing).Google Scholar