抄録
Experimental studies of the “so-called” form constancy phenomenon were investigated by R. Thouless (Brit. J. Psychol., 21, 22) and K. Fissler (Arch.f. d. ges.Psychol., 88), and their explanations of the phenomenon were almost the same in that the perceived form was a compromise between the real form of the object and retinal-image of it. In the first place I started to examine the adequacy of these explanations (Exp. 1).
The standard object (KO) was a white cardboard circle of 20cm. diameter, exposed with an inclination of 30 from the frontal-parallel plane, and variable objects (VO) were a white cardboard circle of 20cm. diameter and fourteen ellipses, (Their horizontal axes were always 20cm.), presented frontal-parallelly. They were presented in front of the frontal-parallel background of grey paper.
From the result of this experiment their explanations seemed to be adequate. But at the same time we have an experience that, when we look at a tea-cup obliquely, we usually see it almost circular. From this kind of observation we can suppose that, if KO is presented singly, the perceived form of KO is different from that of Exp. 1.
Making experiments on this assumption (Exp. 2), it was ,found that our assumption was right. Moreover there are some weakpoints in Eissler's study, for example; the problem of over-constancy. So we need a new wider assumption-and it seems to me that K. Koffka's assumption is exactly fitted for this purpose. He assumes that the form and the orientation are an in variant relation, i. e., constancy will be the greater, the more adequate the perceived orientation of figure is. I examined this assumption (Exp. 3), and gained the result which approximately verified it.
It is a question, however, that the perceived orientation is always constant no matter whether both KO and VO are presented or not. Investigating this point (Exp. 4), I could find that it was different in these two cases. Hence we must divide our problem into two parts, i. e., constancy under comparison and that under single presentation. I took up the former as our problem at the present, and accordingly it seemed natural that on the comparison of KO and VO the phenomenal localization of VO influenced the perceived KO.
Under this supposition, I introduced some changes in temporal and spatial distances between KO and VO (Exp. 5), and made the phenomenal localization o VO unstable (Exp. 6). From the results of these experiments I could verify our supposition. In fact, phenomenal localizations of KO and VO are determined by the whole stimulus-constellation, and if we change a part of it, phenomenal localizations will change also. Accordingly if we incline the background at the angle of 30°, 45° from the frontal-parallel plane (Exp. 7), we can expect the change of the degree of constancy and the results of experiments showed that our expectation was fulfilled.
Then it was asked in what way that the process of comparison were conducted. As a means of finding a clue to it, I made some experiments of comparison with line-figures. Considering the results of them and W. Kohler's work (Psychol. Forsch., 18), it could be concluded that the comparison was accomplished in our case too by the “Verlagerung” of “Ich”.
So we can conclude that the perceived form of KO is determined by the process of comparison between the phenomenal localizations of KO and VO, and the process of comparison itself determined in its turn by the dynamics of cerebral rocesses corresponding to “Ich” of O and his enviroment which contains the two objects.
