It takes two for an inverse relationship

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Burgess (2001) discusses, in his words, "the effect of mirror reflection on chirality and handedness". In my view, the known effect of mirror optics on what it shows is part of the question addressed in the target article, not the answer to it. The phenomenon in question is the cognition of mirror viewers that what they see in it in a frontal view reverses position along the horizontal axis of the facet facing the mirror plane. The puzzle is why that is true only of that planar axis GIVEN what we know about mirror optics. Both the account of the phenomenon and the solution of the puzzle are argued to transcend the optics of the mirror. Following that, Burgess' claim that the puzzle is notation-dependent is shown to be false.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-6
Number of pages6
JournalPsycoloquy
Volume13
StatePublished - 2002

Keywords

  • Chirality
  • Enantiomorphs
  • Frontal encounter
  • Handedness
  • Left-right reversal
  • Mirror reversal
  • Mirror vision
  • Object perception
  • Perceptual frame of reference
  • Spatial cognition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Psychology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'It takes two for an inverse relationship'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this