Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1: Containing Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.
Science
Harvard Psychological Studies, Volume 1: Containing Sixteen Experimental Investigations from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory.
Psychology, Experimental
Thus far all of my experiments were made with _passive_ touch. I
intend now to pursue this problem of the relation between the
illusions of sight and touch into the region of _active_ touch. I have
yielded somewhat to the current fashion in thus separating the passive
from the active touch in this discussion. I have already said that I
believe it would be better not to make this distinction so pronounced.
Here again I have concerned myself primarily with only one illusion,
the illusion which deals with open and filled spaces. This is the
illusion to which Dresslar[12] devoted a considerable portion of his
essay on the 'Psychology of Touch,' and which he erroneously thought
to be the counterpart of the optical illusion for open and filled
spaces. One of the earliest notices of this illusion is that given by
James,[13] who says, "Divide a line on paper into two equal halves,
puncture the extremities, and make punctures all along one of the
halves; then, with the finger-tip on the opposite side of the paper,
follow the line of punctures; the empty half will seem much longer
than the punctured half."
[12] Dresslar, F.B., _Am. Journ. of Psy._, 1894, VI., p. 313.
[13] James, W., 'Principles of Psychology,' New York, 1893,
II., p. 250.
James has given no detailed account of his experiments. He does not
tell us how many tests were made, nor how long the lines were, nor
whether the illusion was the same when the open half was presented
first. Dresslar took these important questions into consideration, and
arrived at a conclusion directly opposite to that of James, namely,
that the filled half of the line appears larger than the open half.
Dresslar's conclusion is, therefore, that sight and touch function
alike. I have already said that I think that Parrish was entirely
right in saying that this is not the analogue of the familiar optical
illusion. Nevertheless, I felt sure that it would be quite worth the
while to make a more extensive study than that which Dresslar has
reported. Others besides James and Dresslar have experimented with
this illusion. As in the case of the illusion for passive touch, there
are not wanting champions of both opinions as to the direction in
which this illusion lies.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account