In 1994 Brooks and Sherrick showed that both the rod-and-frame effect and frame-and-spot-induced motion increase as the inducing frame is made larger. This suggests that change in perceived spatial orientation causes induced motion. Here it is argued that the rod-and-frame effect is more appropriately compared with induced rotation, which differs from frame-and-spot-induced motion in a number of ways. It is argued that the rod-and-frame effect may inhibit induced rotation.
References
1.
BrooksJ. N., & SherrickM. F. (1994) Induced motion and the visual vertical: effects of frame size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1443–1450.
2.
BrosgoleL. (1968) The analysis of induced motion. Acta Psychologica, 28, 1–44.
3.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1981) Peripheral movement, induced movement, and aftereffects of induced movement. Perception, 10, 173–181.
4.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1984) Negative aftereffect arising from prolonged viewing of induced movement-in-depth. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 359–362.
5.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1988) Induced movement in the visual modality: an overview. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 57–71.
6.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1991) On the salience of the inducer's displacement in induced rotary movement. Perception, 20, 337–343.
