Abstract
This paper is a comment on the preceding paper in this issue by Pressey and Bross. The author reviews his position on the reversed Müller–Lyer illusion in which the illusion is explained in terms of the ‘enclosing nature’ of the ingoing fins. The two difficulties with this explanation pointed out by Pressey and Bross are discussed. Recent experimental work on the effects of enclosures is reported. A critique of Pressey and Bross's explanation of the reversed Müller–Lyer illusion is presented.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
