Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

theneurosphere.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#31

Post by akavi »

chakalakasp wrote: post #7

The way the eye interfaces with the brain never ceases to amaze me. Another fun fact is that it even has it's own error correction mechanisms, one of which you can intentionally miscalibrate in order to see colors that aren't there for days, weeks, and sometimes even months after doing the calibration (which is acheived by looking at a very specific image pattern for a long time). I would not recommend actually doing…

I "induced" the effect several years ago (At least 3 or 4, but probably more), and to this day the grating has a faint, but noticeable color tinge.

At least for me, it seems to be truly permanent.

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#32

Post by icelancer »

kakarot wrote: post #12
Sharlin wrote: post #3

The fovea, the area of high-resolution vision in the middle of the field of view, is surprisingly small, just a few degrees across. The resolution falls rapidly outside the fovea [1]. A lot of the detail we perceive in the periphery is actually the brain filling in blanks based on "cached" data. The resolution drop could in principle be taken advantage of in computer graphics, especially in VR applications with robus…

I always love getting a chance to promote these guys. http://www.getfove.com/ They get it. Eye tracking, foveated rendering, all that.

Any idea when they might launch if ever? Been waiting on that. I built my own gaze tracking system but would like a production-ready model.

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#33

Post by Robin_Message »

Roboprog wrote: post #26

One odd thing I noticed. At the size the image displayed on my laptop, I could look at a dot and see the dots to either side, but not the ones above or below, even though they were the same distance apart. I guess at least my fovea must be a horizontal ellipse, rather than a circle.

I noticed the same. I wonder if this is a result of two horizontally separated eyes (assuming too too are not a cyclops), or a training effect of reading horizontal text regularly?

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#34

Post by neurosphere »

spb wrote: post #27

The worst trait I see when domain experts try to write "introductory" material is a depressingly-common amnesia toward what it was like to not already know their subject matter. This article is so badly written, so overly and needlessly wordy, that I'm honestly considering deconstructing it line-by-line as a case study in how not to write articles for the layman. Here's a brief example, using the most jarring line I'…

Bit of a harsh critique, though I appreciate reading people's comments on my writing. Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly. I'm sorry that what I wrote wasn't sufficiently comprehensible :-( Also, I never took a philosophy class. None of what I said was meant to be pretentious or superior - I was just putting out there some concepts I found interesting.

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#35

Post by dahart »

a3_nm wrote: post #29
chakalakasp wrote: post #7

The way the eye interfaces with the brain never ceases to amaze me. Another fun fact is that it even has it's own error correction mechanisms, one of which you can intentionally miscalibrate in order to see colors that aren't there for days, weeks, and sometimes even months after doing the calibration (which is acheived by looking at a very specific image pattern for a long time). I would not recommend actually doing…

It's terrifying that you can innocently trigger bugs in your visual cortex that will take lots of time to fix. A terrible idea would be to make a video game (or a short movie maybe) which triggered the effect. Imagine if the background in (e.g.) Super Hexagon were designed for this purpose...

Looking at the first YouTube result of Super Hexagon, since I haven't played it before, holy crap I think this playing game will already do brain damage! ;)

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#36

Post by dahart »

akavi wrote: post #31
chakalakasp wrote: post #7

The way the eye interfaces with the brain never ceases to amaze me. Another fun fact is that it even has it's own error correction mechanisms, one of which you can intentionally miscalibrate in order to see colors that aren't there for days, weeks, and sometimes even months after doing the calibration (which is acheived by looking at a very specific image pattern for a long time). I would not recommend actually doing…

I "induced" the effect several years ago (At least 3 or 4, but probably more), and to this day the grating has a faint, but noticeable color tinge. At least for me, it seems to be truly permanent.

Crazy! Ever tried to undo it using the opposite stimulus from what you did originally?

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#37

Post by andrepd »

Cybiote wrote: post #21
Sharlin wrote: post #3

The fovea, the area of high-resolution vision in the middle of the field of view, is surprisingly small, just a few degrees across. The resolution falls rapidly outside the fovea [1]. A lot of the detail we perceive in the periphery is actually the brain filling in blanks based on "cached" data. The resolution drop could in principle be taken advantage of in computer graphics, especially in VR applications with robus…

Interesting idea about the eye-tracking for VR: offloading computation to the brain! I'll make a correction that while minor, makes a world of difference: filling in the blank is more accurately understood as the brain making bayesian inferences or predictions or best guesses about what's missing or uncertain. The top down interaction occurring there is much more interesting than the term caching implies.

>filling in the blank is more accurately understood as the brain making bayesian inferences or predictions or best guesses about what's missing or uncertain.

Do you have any sources, or further reading, on that?

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#38

Post by pavel_lishin »

chakalakasp wrote: post #7

The way the eye interfaces with the brain never ceases to amaze me. Another fun fact is that it even has it's own error correction mechanisms, one of which you can intentionally miscalibrate in order to see colors that aren't there for days, weeks, and sometimes even months after doing the calibration (which is acheived by looking at a very specific image pattern for a long time). I would not recommend actually doing…

For those of you interested in science fiction whose interest was piqued by this comment, here's some required reading:

http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm

http://ansible.uk/writing/c-b-faq.html

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#39

Post by kakarot »

icelancer wrote: post #32
kakarot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always love getting a chance to promote these guys. http://www.getfove.com/ They get it. Eye tracking, foveated rendering, all that.

Any idea when they might launch if ever? Been waiting on that. I built my own gaze tracking system but would like a production-ready model.

What was your setup?

They send out monthly newsletters and things are coming along, just at a slower pace than everyone was hoping for. But no official release date yet.

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#40

Post by icelancer »

kakarot wrote: post #39
icelancer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea when they might launch if ever? Been waiting on that. I built my own gaze tracking system but would like a production-ready model.

What was your setup? They send out monthly newsletters and things are coming along, just at a slower pace than everyone was hoping for. But no official release date yet.

Pair of Chinese endoscope cameras and a LX1000 webcam + free open source software for gaze tracking. Worked OK.
Post reply on HN