ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE Science => VCE Mathematics/Science/Technology => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Psychology => Topic started by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 01:47:29 pm

Title: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 01:47:29 pm
We dont have to know them right?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: akira88 on May 30, 2010, 01:51:13 pm
What do you mean?
Perceptual compromise etc?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Visionz on May 30, 2010, 01:54:07 pm
or do you mean cognitive and biological factors?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Tashi on May 30, 2010, 03:16:23 pm
I think you just have to know one. They won't ask "what is the apparent-distance theory?" or "what is the perceptual compromise theory?" but rather "give an explanation for this illusion." The chief examiner in the lecture the other day was saying as long as students gave a reasonable explanation for a theory, they got a mark for one year they asked it.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 04:11:52 pm
ok, so is the 'carpentered world hypotheisis' the same as the 'apparent distance hypothesis?'
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Tashi on May 30, 2010, 04:21:33 pm
Yeah pretty much. Carpentered world hypothesis incorporates apparent distance I think, because apparent distance can also somehow be used for Ames room - not sure how though...
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 05:43:47 pm
How is the floor in the ames room constructed? Please be detailed
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Tashi on May 30, 2010, 05:47:20 pm
Um I'm not really an expert in psych, but I think the floor slants downwards towards the left corner and the left corner is double the height and distance of the right corner.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Visionz on May 30, 2010, 05:51:33 pm
http://cfs8.blog.daum.net/image/30/blog/2008/11/05/20/16/49118099d6d8e

And yes im pretty sure it slants downwards towards the further away corner (the ceiling also slants upwards). There was a video where a person sat a ball down on the floor of the ames room and it rolled towards the back corner without any initial force behind it.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 05:58:50 pm
From the viewer does the floor slant upwards or downwards?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on May 30, 2010, 06:01:25 pm
downwards. whichever corner is closer to the viewer would have the floor at its highest point
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 06:14:11 pm
So let me get this straight.

The floor slants downwards from the right to the left
It also slants downwards from the viewer to the the wall
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: akira88 on May 30, 2010, 06:15:14 pm
It's awesome because I went on an excursion to Amaze 'n' Things to go into their Ames room :D

 It doesn't matter whether or not you say the further corner is the right or left, as long as you keep it consistent with your explanation- that the same corner that is further away is sloping down, and that the ceiling is slanting upwards.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 06:18:52 pm
Ohh...ok thanks akira

But how come in this picture (from heinemann) is the slope upwards?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Visionz on May 30, 2010, 06:32:17 pm
Ohh...ok thanks akira

But how come in this picture (from heinemann) is the slope upwards?

It also has the girl appearing the same size at both distances. Which we know is wrong.

watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttd0YjXF0no
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Visionz on May 30, 2010, 06:37:03 pm
Also if you think about it. The ceiling has to go up and the floor has to slope down to prevent the linear perspective effect where parallel lines appear to converge in the distance. The same linear perspective principle we learn about.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on May 30, 2010, 06:39:07 pm
I still don't get how the apparent distance theory applies in the Ames room. it seems to contradict it completely, since size constancy isn't maintained it's unlikely two retinal images would be the same size.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: iNerd on May 30, 2010, 06:42:30 pm
I still don't get how the apparent distance theory applies in the Ames room. it seems to contradict it completely, since size constancy isn't maintained it's unlikely two retinal images would be the same size.
huh? ii'm doing pysch Unit 1 and this is what we've been taught..."shape constancy is maintained over size contancy as we assume the back of the room is a rectangular when inffact it is a trapezium. Thus we assume that the two people are the same distance from us and one looks bigger when in fact they are the same size, it's just that one is closer."
Is this right; off the top of my head lol;; got a perfect answer in my book somewhere...
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 06:45:08 pm
Also if you think about it. The ceiling has to go up and the floor has to slope down to prevent the linear perspective effect where parallel lines appear to converge in the distance. The same linear perspective principle we learn about.

Interesting...so your saying the linear perspective effect will make it appear more distant so its eliminated?

Wow, I never thought of it that way. That's amazing, I don't think i'll ever forget that!!!!!
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 06:50:26 pm
So Visonz, the floor is a trapezoid and in the ames room, it is tilted at one point (as shown in image below).
As a result of this tilt, the slant is downwards both vertically and horizontally?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on May 30, 2010, 06:50:45 pm
I still don't get how the apparent distance theory applies in the Ames room. it seems to contradict it completely, since size constancy isn't maintained it's unlikely two retinal images would be the same size.
huh? ii'm doing pysch Unit 1 and this is what we've been taught..."shape constancy is maintained over size contancy as we assume the back of the room is a rectangular when inffact it is a trapezium. Thus we assume that the two people are the same distance from us and one looks bigger when in fact they are the same size, it's just that one is closer."
Is this right; off the top of my head lol;; got a perfect answer in my book somewhere...

that's correct. and a lot simpler than how i try to explain it, but in the Grivas textbook the main explanation they give for the room is the apparent distance theory which states when two people are the same size but one appears to be more distant then the one that appears to be further away will be interpreted as larger. Never really understood the Grivas explanations for Visual Illusions. But yeah, your answers right.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Visionz on May 30, 2010, 07:02:08 pm
So Visonz, the floor is a trapezoid and in the ames room, it is tilted at one point (as shown in image below).
As a result of this tilt, the slant is downwards both vertically and horizontally?

From the peephole the floor slopes upwards to the closer back corner. From that corner the floor slopes down to the further away back corner.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 07:05:53 pm
What about the ceiling? I know it slants upwards from the right to the left, but what about from the peephole?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: akira88 on May 30, 2010, 07:06:17 pm
I still don't get how the apparent distance theory applies in the Ames room. it seems to contradict it completely, since size constancy isn't maintained it's unlikely two retinal images would be the same size.
It doesn't make sense. My teacher who was a past examiner doesn't get it- I think the Grivas textbook fails there. She said she messaged the Chief Examiner about it, but never got a reply. But she says it probably won't come up on exams, so don't worry about it too much.

And I think that diagram is wrong, it can't be like that! :P
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on May 30, 2010, 07:09:23 pm
What about the ceiling? I know it slants upwards from the right to the left, but what about from the peephole?

Boots maybe you're a little too concerned with the slanting. On the exams i've done you've never had to mention the slant in great detail, they're more concerned with it being a trapezoidal shape with one corner being further and one side being higher, objects may be distorted in the room and so on and of course, that it must be viewed through a peephole. I doubt they'd expect as much detail as people here have gone in to.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 07:11:54 pm
lol

Well the MC question on the 08 vcaa exam sparked my concern

Anyways is the slant increasing from the peephole to the wall?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on May 30, 2010, 07:12:43 pm
well the peepholes in the middle. so I guess it'd go both ways?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Visionz on May 30, 2010, 07:13:06 pm
What about the ceiling? I know it slants upwards from the right to the left, but what about from the peephole?

Boots maybe you're a little too concerned with the slanting. On the exams i've done you've never had to mention the slant in great detail, they're more concerned with it being a trapezoidal shape with one corner being further and one side being higher, objects may be distorted in the room and so on and of course, that it must be viewed through a peephole. I doubt they'd expect as much detail as people here have gone in to.

yeah ive been told that theyre pretty generous, you just need to make sure you mention: trapezoidal in shape, peephole, inability to use binocular depth cues, tendency to maintain shape constancy over size constancy.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 07:30:12 pm
so the answer is?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: minilunchbox on May 30, 2010, 07:31:38 pm
Hmm. Seems like it's time for me to have a trip to Melbourne Museum to play in the Ames Room there.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 07:58:25 pm
what do they mean that the objects in the wall are distorted to eliminate linear perspective?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: akira88 on May 30, 2010, 08:52:42 pm
what do they mean that the objects in the wall are distorted to eliminate linear perspective?
If the windows in the room were the same size and not distorted, we would be able to perceive the REAL distortion of the room due to the monocular cue of linear perspective- that is, we assume something is receding into the distant if two parallel lines appear to converge. So if we see the lines converge, it gives it away that the room isn't normal, and in fact is distorted. I hope I haven't just confused you :(
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 30, 2010, 11:32:57 pm
which pararallel lines are in the ames room?
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Tashi on May 30, 2010, 11:54:13 pm
I suggest looking at the answer for 11a in the VCAA 2005 exam. That's what you pretty much have to know in terms of the physical aspects of the Ames room.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on May 31, 2010, 12:06:23 pm
thats in the past, u have no idea what there gonna put this year.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: akira88 on May 31, 2010, 04:41:44 pm
which pararallel lines are in the ames room?
Well there are no parallel lines- that is the point. They purposely distort the features of the room so that we can't see the true distorted shape of it (haha)- and so we perceive the features as looking normal. If there were parallel lines, like I said before, we would be able to apply the depth cue of linear perspective.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Chromeo33 on May 31, 2010, 09:51:59 pm
Also if you think about it. The ceiling has to go up and the floor has to slope down to prevent the linear perspective effect where parallel lines appear to converge in the distance. The same linear perspective principle we learn about.

They both don't have to slant.
Either way, if either the ceiling or the floor slants, the lines of the adjacent wall will still NOT recede into the distance.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Tashi on May 31, 2010, 10:55:50 pm
thats in the past, u have no idea what there gonna put this year.

I'm sure they won't ask how is linear perspective related to the Ames room.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Slumdawg on May 31, 2010, 11:32:55 pm
thats in the past, u have no idea what there gonna put this year.

I'm sure they won't ask how is linear perspective related to the Ames room.

yer i agree. it would be funny if they did though. They keep repeating questions. So I doubt there would be many curveballs. Its the last year of the study design they're kinda over making original questions and running out of options haha. I wouldn't be surprised if there were multiple questions practically re-used. They did this in the last year of the business study design, so there will probably be a similar story for psych..
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Chromeo33 on June 01, 2010, 09:14:37 pm
thats in the past, u have no idea what there gonna put this year.

I'm sure they won't ask how is linear perspective related to the Ames room.

yer i agree. it would be funny if they did though. They keep repeating questions. So I doubt there would be many curveballs. Its the last year of the study design they're kinda over making original questions and running out of options haha. I wouldn't be surprised if there were multiple questions practically re-used. They did this in the last year of the business study design, so there will probably be a similar story for psych..


That'd be awesome if they were recycled. They'll probs just change the names of the people in the situational q's :)
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on June 01, 2010, 10:19:56 pm
I hate some of the situational q's, especially regarding those about past experience. coming up with a situation on the spot about why a guy would perceive the ambiguous drawing to be a old woman while a girl perceives it to be a young woman is just... I don't know what sort of example they'd like. grr
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Boots on June 01, 2010, 11:18:41 pm
haha, my teacher warned us about this. Spereadbury you know too much, hence you think more about the quetsion, hence you get confused.
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Spreadbury on June 02, 2010, 04:36:27 pm
it's not that i know too much Boots, it's more that I don't know what an acceptable example would be, there could be specific criteria and in certain subjects (not necessarily psychology, though in some parts it can be) you just vomit up the information and arrange it accordingly. And also one examiner may think your examples genius while another thinks it's absolute bollocks. But i've always had trouble coming up with examples like that, it's just worse in exam conditions
Title: Re: illusion theories
Post by: Chromeo33 on June 02, 2010, 05:36:39 pm
You could say one MAY work in an elderly home where he/she sees more elderly women, thereby perceiving the old woman.

The other MAY work as a teacher at a high school ?