Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Size Contrast and Empty Space in the Explanation of the Moon Illusion

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The much larger appearance of the moon near horizon than the perceived size of the moon at zenith has motivated many scientists to develop theories that aim at explaining this puzzling phenomenon. Considering that the size of retinal images of the moon in these positions are very similar, the explanation of difference in their apparent sizes has relied on perceptual cues of distance embedded in the retinal image of their respective contexts. Although this account of the moon illusion is quite popular, it does not explain all aspects of this phenomenon. The theoretical formulation of the moon illusion based on other factors such as size contrast later may have had some advantages but has also created some new problems. Although the moon is perceived in a three-dimensional (3D) environment, the present analysis proposes that an explanation of the moon illusion based on two-dimensional (2D) cues can remove some of the unnecessary problems. The empty space and size contrast that have already been considered in explaining classic geometric-optical illusions play a parallel role in explaining the moon illusion. In other words, the role of open space in interaction with the image of the moon and different objects near horizon, all reflected on the retina, are considered as the main explaining factors. The advantages of this approach will be discussed and some of the facts pertaining to the moon illusion will be explained within this theoretical framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Armstrong, D.M. (1960). Berkeley’s theory of vision: a critical. Examination of Bishop Berkeley’s Essay towards a new theory of vision.

  • Baird, J. C., Wagner, M., & Fuld, K. (1990). A simple but powerful theory of the moon illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 675–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C. (1982). The moon illusion: II. A reference theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(3), 304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J. C., & Wagner, M. (1982). The moon illusion: I. How high is the sky? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111(3), 296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boring, E. G. (1943). The moon illusion. American Journal of Physics, 11(2), 55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cretenoud, A. F., Karimpur, H., Grzeczkowski, L., Francis, G., Hamburger, K., & Herzog, M. H. (2019). Factors underlying visual illusions are illusion-specific but not feature-specific. Journal of Vision, 19(14), 12–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren, S., & Enns, J. T. (1993). Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between test and inducers. Perception & Psychophysics, 54(5), 579–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren, S., Girgus, J. S., Erlichman, H., & Hakstian, A. R. (1976). An empirical taxonomy of visual illusions. Perception & Psychophysics, 20(2), 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coren, S., & Miller, J. (1974). Size contrast as a function of figural similarity. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(2), 355–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, F. (1998). The moon illusion. Philosophy of Science, 65(4), 604–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, J. T. (1989). The eye, the brain, and the size of the moon: toward a unified oculomotor hypothesis. In H. Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion (pp. 59–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enright, J. T. (1987). Art and the oculomotor system: Perspective illustrations evoke vergence changes. Perception, 16, 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, J. T. (1975). The moon illusion examined from a new point of view. Proceedings of the American Philosophical society, 119(2), 87–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellows, B. J. (1968). The reverse Müller-Lyer illusion and ‘enclosure’. British Journal of Psychology, 59(4), 369–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellows, B. J. (1967). Reversal of the Müller-Lyer illusion with changes in the length of the inter-fins line. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19(3), 208–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilinsky, A. S. (1980). The paradoxical moon illusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50(1), 271–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogel, W. C. (1970). The adjacency principle and three-dimensional visual illusions. Psychonomic Monograph Supplement, 3(Whole No.45), 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. L. (1970). The Intelligent Eye. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. L. (1968). Visual illusions. Scientific American, 219(5), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holway, A. H., & Boring, E. G. (1940). The apparent size of the moon as a function of the angle of regard: Further experiments. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 537–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holway, A. H., & Boring, E. G. (1940b). The moon illusion and the angle of regard. The American Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L., Vassiliades, V., Noble, R., Alexander, R., Kaufman, J., & Edlund, S. (2007). Perceptual distance and the moon illusion. Spatial Vision, 20, 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L., & Kaufman, J. H. (2000). Explaining the moon illusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(1), 500–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L., & Rock, I. (1962). The moon illusion, I. Science, 136, 953–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knol, H., Huys, R., Sarrazin, J. C., & Jirsa, V. K. (2015). Quantifying the Ebbinghaus figure effect: Target size, context size, and target-context distance determine the presence and direction of the illusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs, Z., Udvarnoki, Z., Papp, E., & Horvath, G. (2021). Psychophysical study of the moon illusion in paintings and landscape photos. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477(2245), 20200737. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W. (1989). Experimental psychology: an information Processing Approach. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, D. W., & Anderson, N. H. (1971). Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCready, D. (1985). On size, distance, and visual angle perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37(4), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemati, F. (2009). Size and direction of distortion in geometric-optical illusions: conciliation between the Müller-Lyer and titchener configurations. Perception, 38(11), 1585–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plug, C., & Ross, H. E. (1994). The natural moon illusion: A multifactor angular account. Perception, 23(3), 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Predebon, J. (1992). Framing effects and the reversed Müller-Lyer illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 52(3), 307–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restle, F. (1970). Moon illusion explained on the basis of relative size. Science, 167(3921), 1092–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. O. (1998). The psychology of visual illusion. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I., & Kaufman, L. (1962). The moon illusion, II: The moon’s apparent size is a function of the presence or absence of terrain. Science, 136(3521), 1023–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, S. N. (1989). The zoom-lens hypothesis. In H. Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion (pp. 31–57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H., & Cowie, A. (2010). The moon illusion in children’s drawings. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 3, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. E., & Plug, C. (2002). The mystery of the moon illusion: Exploring size perception. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. E., & Ross, G. M. (1976). Did Ptolemy understand the moon illusion? Perception, 5, 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, O. W., Smith, P. C., Geist, C. C., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1978). Apparent size contrasts of retinal images and size constancy as determinants of the moon illusion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46(3), 803–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, K. (2007). The moon illusion: Kaufman and Rock’s (1962) apparent-distance theory reconsidered 1. Japanese Psychological Research, 49(1), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, K. (1991). Moon illusion simulated in complete darkness: Planetarium experiment reexamined. Perception and Psychophysics, 49, 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, K. (1984). Projected afterimages and the moon illusion. Paper presented at the 3rd Convention of the Japanese Psychonomic Society, Sophia University, Tokyo.

  • Taylor, D. W., & Boring, E. G. (1942). The moon illusion as a function of binocular regard. American Journal of Psychology, 55, 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidner, R., Plewan, T., Chen, Q., Buchner, A., Weiss, P. H., & Fink, G. R. (2014). The moon illusion and size–distance scaling—evidence for shared neural patterns. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 26(8), 1871–1882. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00590

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The research was not funded by any agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroscience, Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

    Farshad Nemati

Authors
  1. Farshad Nemati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farshad Nemati.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

I, Farshad Nemati, thereby give consent for publication of the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nemati, F. The Role of Size Contrast and Empty Space in the Explanation of the Moon Illusion. Found Sci (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-022-09889-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-022-09889-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation