Abstract
The 'figural after-effect' of Kohler and Wallach1 was reported by the present author in 1947 to maintain its size independent of the distance from O at which it was measured.2 In other words, that report indicated that the figural after-effect does not obey a law of visual angle like the one followed by ordinary stimuli (giving rise to 'size constancy') or by negative after-images (Emmert's Law); but rather that the figural aftereffect had an absolute size like the Eidetic image or like every-day memory images. It now appears that the conclusion of the earlier paper was in error. The purpose of the present report is, therefore, to give the evidence which contradicts the results of the former experiment and to discuss the discrepancies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
