Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Errors in judging information about reflections in mirrors.

Rebecca Lawson1, Marco Bertamini

  • 1School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK. rlawson@liverpool.ac.uk

Perception
|November 24, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

At the roots of Plant Awareness Disparity (PAD): Semantic processing and numerosity perception.

PloS one·2026
Same author

Delayed foveal and parafoveal masks disrupt peripheral target processing.

Cognition·2026
Same author

Sustained posterior negativity (SPN) elicited by brief (20 ms) symmetrical stimuli.

Frontiers in psychology·2026
Same author

Perceptual organization and its visual subcomponents in schizophrenia and schizotypy: A systematic review.

Schizophrenia research·2026
Same author

On how people describe paintings with mirrors.

British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)·2025
Same author

Metacontrast masking of symmetric stimuli.

PloS one·2025
Same journal

Predictive models and parameter analysis for multiple tactile perceptions in skin-wet fabrics interface.

Perception·2026
Same journal

High-resolution kitsch by AI: Why society needs art, not more AI content.

Perception·2026
Same journal

Benchmarking spatial discrimination thresholds of two-frame motion defined forms compared to luminance and stereoscopic defined forms.

Perception·2026
Same journal

The effect of face masks on the perception of trustworthiness and competence in individuals with autistic traits.

Perception·2026
Same journal

The importance of external features for categorizing ethnicity: can Koreans identify Korean, Japanese, and Chinese faces?

Perception·2026
Same journal

Interoception, alexithymia, and motor congruency: Psychological drivers of body ownership in virtual reality.

Perception·2026
See all related articles

People accurately predict when they see their mirror reflection but often stop too soon if the mirror is covered. They also overestimate reflection size, especially with covered mirrors, due to a powerful size-constancy effect.

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Visual Perception
  • Cognitive Science

Background:

  • Understanding human perception of optical phenomena like mirror reflections is crucial for cognitive science.
  • Previous research suggests visual cues significantly influence spatial judgments.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate people's perception and knowledge of planar mirror reflections.
  • To determine the impact of perceptual feedback on accuracy in predicting reflection visibility and size.

Main Methods:

  • Participants judged when their reflection first became visible approaching a mirror from the side.
  • Participants estimated the size of their facial reflection in both visible and covered mirror conditions.
  • Generalization of size overestimation was tested with novel stimuli (paper ellipses).

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Participants accurately predicted reflection visibility when the mirror was uncovered but stopped too early when it was covered.
  • A significant overestimation of reflection size occurred, particularly with covered mirrors.
  • Perceptual feedback improved accuracy but did not eliminate errors in size estimation.
  • Size overestimation was not face-specific and occurred with different response methods.

Conclusions:

  • Initial errors in predicting reflection visibility stem from inaccurate beliefs that perceptual feedback can correct.
  • A strong size-constancy effect is the primary cause of overestimating reflection size, even with visual feedback.
  • Human perception of mirror reflections is influenced by both prior beliefs and robust perceptual mechanisms.