Figural after - effects and apparent size

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Sutherland (1954) obtained results which suggest that when the retinal size of test and inspection figures is equal, the direction of the FAE may be determined by the relative apparent sizes of the two figures. Other investigators have reproduced this result when exactly the same conditions were used : when the conditions were changed the result was not obtained. In the present paper these results are discussed and a n attempt is made to determine why the effect is not obtained with small variations in the experimental conditions. It is further shown that some FAE phenomena cannot be explained by the two main existing theories; these phenomena could be explained if some analysis of the stimulus is being performed before the stage of the nervous system at which the process underlying FAEs occurs. Some recent physiological evidence (Hubel and Wiesel, 1959) supports this hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, it is likely that further work on FAEs determined by apparent size may help to throw light on the physiological mechanisms underlying size constancy, and some further experiments are suggested.