|
Study Says Visual System Equipped With 'Future Seeing Powers' (5/18/2008)
 |
| The Hering illusion is exemplified by the perceived curvature of the straight lines near the vanishing point in the center of the drawing. The optical illusion occurs because our brains are predicting the way the underlying scene would project in the next moment if we were moving in the direction of the vanishing point. |
New research categorizes more than 50 types of illusions that help us perceive the present
Catching a football. Maneuvering through a room full of people. Jumping out of the way when a golfer yells "fore." Most would agree these seemingly simple actions require us to perceive and quickly respond to a situation. Assistant Professor of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Mark Changizi argues they require something more - our ability to foresee the future.
It takes our brain nearly one-tenth of a second to translate the light that hits our retina into a visual perception of the world around us. While a neural delay of that magnitude may seem minuscule, imagine trying to catch a ball or wade through a store full of people while always perceiving the very recent (one-tenth of a second prior) past. A ball passing within one meter of you and traveling at one meter per second in reality would be roughly six degrees displaced from where you perceive it, and even the slowest forward-moving person can travel at least ten centimeters in a tenth of a second.
Changizi claims the visual system has evolved to compensate for neural delays, allowing it to generate perceptions of what will occur one-tenth of a second into the future, so that when an observer actually perceives something, it is the present rather than what happened one-tenth of a second ago. Using his hypothesis, called "perceiving-the-present," he was able to systematically organize and explain more than 50 types of visual illusions that occur because our brains are trying to perceive the near future. His findings are described in May-June issue of the journal Cognitive Science.
"Illusions occur when our brains attempt to perceive the future, and those perceptions don't match reality. There has been great success at discovering and documenting countless visual illusions. There has been considerably less success in organizing them," says Changizi, who is lead author on the paper. "My research focused on systematizing these known incidents of failed future seeing into a 'periodic table' of illusion classes that can predict a broad pattern of the illusions we might be subject to."
More than meets the eye
We experience countless illusions in our lifetime. The most famous being geometrical illusions - those with converging lines and a vanishing point we often see in Psychology 101 classes or in entertaining optical illusion books.
To picture one, think of the Hering illusion, which looks like a bike spoke with two vertical lines drawn on either side of the center vanishing point. Although the lines are straight, they seem to bow out away from the vanishing point. The optical illusion occurs because our brains are predicting the way the underlying scene would project in the next moment if we were moving in the direction of the vanishing point.
"Evolution has seen to it that geometric drawings like this elicit in us premonitions of the near future," says Changizi. "The converging lines toward a vanishing point are cues that trick our brains into thinking we are moving forward - as we would in the real world, where the door frame seems to bow out as we move through it - and we try to perceive what that world will look like in the next instant."
Beyond geometric, Changizi was able to identify 27 other classes of illusions. He organized them into 28 predictable categories classified on a matrix that distributes them among four columns based on the type of visual feature that is misperceived (size, speed, luminance, and distance) and among seven rows based on the different optical features that occur when an observer is moving forward.
He then culled hundreds of previously documented illusions to test whether they would follow the appropriate prediction as determined by the table, and found that they did, indeed, follow the patterns he laid out in the matrix.
This new organization of illusions presents a range of potential applications, including more effective visual displays and enhanced visual arts. It especially may help constrain neuroscientists aiming to understand the mechanisms underlying vision, according to Changizi.
Changizi conducted his research during a fellowship in the Sloan-Swartz Center for Theoretical Neurobiology at the California Institute of Technology. Coauthors on the paper include: Caltech Biology Professor Shinsuke Shimojo, former Caltech undergraduate student Andrew Hsieh, and former Caltech postdoctoral researcher Ryota Kanai, as well as Romi Nijhawan, a psychologist at the University of Sussex in England.
The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the
Comments:
| 1. |
Doug Rosbury |
5/18/2008 3:13:18 PM MST |
In all of our perceptual and psychological analysis, we forget (or don't know)about the fact of the existense of the spiritual realm(s) which are an active participant in all we do. It seems silly to me for that fact to be ignored as it seems to be.The
human brain is a creation of spirit and it operates in obedience to impulses from the
spirit realms. It is a projected sensory
organ designed to enable the spirit(which is oneself)To operate in this physical realm. ---Doug Rosbury
|
| 2. |
Lucas |
5/18/2008 3:15:26 PM MST |
Human brain is still an unexplored terrain, although tries have been done. |
| 3. |
Anonymous |
5/18/2008 3:40:34 PM MST |
Your ignorance eclipses your ego, Doug Rosbury. Would you kindly stop wasting your time depositing mental filth across the internet, and find more productive things to do? Like reading a science book? |
| 4. |
Maxence |
5/18/2008 3:52:15 PM MST |
Hey mister anonymous, as long as people will answer to internet's comments dumbshit, people will still post it. I know it's hard not to answer. Makes me a paradox. am I real ? Am I? Am I? Ok anyway fuzzy stuffs making things proves that somewhere someone maybe making something we are not aware of, and that proves [whatever you want], because universe is very big. Ok I stop, I sound like peter griffin. |
| 5. |
Strung |
5/18/2008 3:55:45 PM MST |
Wow Doug, very interesting scientific observation with flawless method and documentation.
Now "shoo".
|
| 6. |
Annie |
5/18/2008 4:39:51 PM MST |
where can i buy a book of Dougs musings?
I can put it on da shelf i built for dem books i be meanin to git one dai....
|
| 7. |
Nestor |
5/18/2008 6:21:30 PM MST |
Yeah, it's complicated, ergo it must be spirits :/
Actually this is fascinating research and it makes a lot of sense.
|
| 8. |
Carol |
5/18/2008 7:06:57 PM MST |
I love it that someone who has a negative comment and seems so (b)gloating in his/her supremeness has to file the comment under "anonymous". Chickenhead be he/she. |
| 9. |
Jesse |
5/18/2008 7:58:33 PM MST |
It would not surprise me if the brain truly does this. It would not be the most amazing thing it can do by far.
@Doug,
While I can not, and do not, dismiss the possibility of 'spiritual' realms, this is not the place for that kind of discussion. This is a science website, and a science article. Pretending you can explain the workings of the human brain through philosophy is absurd, so please refrain.
|
| 10. |
Fargeaux |
5/19/2008 1:03:57 AM MST |
Interesting how it took until the seventh poster (perhaps eighth, considering the double-post) before somebody responded to Doug rationally and fairly.
Thank you, Jesse, on Doug's behalf. The rest of you (sans Carol) need to stop feeling so self-satisfied that you, indeed, are "scientific". That gives you no right to be jerks.
Besides, such responses only underscore your uncertainty and insecurity with your own belief system(s), and, as Jesse points out, this is not the place for that.
|
| 11. |
Emmanuel J. Karavousanos |
5/26/2008 7:38:01 AM MST |
Simplicity has always been intriguing to many. Perhaps we should look at what many have suggested: the familiar, the obvious, the already known and the things we take for granted. As a layman invited to speak at several conferences on consciousness, I talked about the analysis of things already known to us. Many saw apples fall from trees, but only Newton, through an insight, realized a force was tugging at them. Similarly, many witnessed lightning before him, but only Franklin, again through insight, recognized that lightning may be harnessed. And so it was with many familiar things and things we take for granted. In a talk given at Yale Divinity School recently, In respect to consciousness, I explained how it is that science and faith actually work together and how it is that insight is their nexus. Insight must be looked at in a new light in order for us to ever reach the so-called ultimate reality which is indeed the wholesome, healthy state of mind we SHOULD all seek. A number of prominent names have given us a basis to look at familiar things. Here is a small sample:
We need education in the obvious
more than investigation of the
obscure.
Oliver Wendell Holems Jr.
Familiar things happen and mankind
does not bother about them.
Alfred North Whitehead
Nothing evades our attention as
persistently as that which is taken
for granted.
Gustav Ichheiser
Because it's familiar, a thing
remains unknown.
Hegel.
The unapparent connection is more
powerful than the apparent one.
Heraclitus
Respectfully submitted,
Emmanuel J. Karavousanos
|
| 12. |
Karen Kline |
5/26/2008 12:35:32 PM MST |
First, I love Emmanuel's post.
Second, it seems to me that this article and the research it represents are dealing with what in times past was dealt with in terms of "cause and effect."
I am reminded of my son when he was little and had just learned to crawl. The first time he encountered a closed door he didn't stop, he apparently did not see it as something that would interfere with his progress.
After that, however, when he crawled up to a closed door he no longer went forward as if the door were no impediment.
The way I see it, bumping into the door had the effect of changing his perception of doors.
|
Leave a Reply:
|
|