31–37 of 37 posts
n=9 ... https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.082...
The article and its associated paper did not really engage me. Perhaps I am missing something. However, I was reminded of something that I learned when taking drama lessons as a teenager, and which I have used as a teacher. Our attention of an object (such as another human) oscillates from eye to eye. However, it is biased to one eye. Generally this is the one on the opposite site to our writing norm (i.e. left hande…
Do you have a link with a video or a visual explanation? I dont get what looking unwaveringly out of the eye closest to the camera means - what does it mean to look out of one eye?
https://youtu.be/bZPLVDwEr7Y?t=184
He tell a bunch of actors to always 'pick an eye' when in front of a camera. What Michel Cain does not say is that some actors prefer looking out of their 'handed' eye, believing it to have more impact.
As a demo of 'handedness' in eyes, try this experiment:
1. Hold one finger around one foot in front of your face. Hold the other at arms length. Whilst try to look out of both eyes, ensure that the fingers are visually aligned with each other. This will be difficult, as the images from each eye will not correspond.
2. Slowly open and close one eye. Then do the same with the other. The slow blink from one eye (eye A) will not affect the correspondence of the fingers, whilst the slow blink from the other (eye B) will.
The reason is that eye B is adjusting itself to match eye A.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocular_dominance
Its called ocular dominance apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also multiple frame buffers. The nerves before the brain already do some interpretation, and the brain an optimized version. And the brain can rewrite the history it saved if it finds logical errors that came up because of it filling in gaps wrong. Brains are awesome and scary.
That's the ultimate eventual consistency. When you realize your previous approximation leads to a discontinuous function after new data arrives, just roll back your instruction pointer as well as your perception of time. This ability to retroactively error-correct without affecting perceived continuity could also be affording our brains a greater margin of error.
The article and its associated paper did not really engage me. Perhaps I am missing something. However, I was reminded of something that I learned when taking drama lessons as a teenager, and which I have used as a teacher. Our attention of an object (such as another human) oscillates from eye to eye. However, it is biased to one eye. Generally this is the one on the opposite site to our writing norm (i.e. left hande…
> Our attention of an object (such as another human) oscillates from eye to eye. I thought I understood this at first but with a bit more thought I realised I didn't. You can change the angle between your eyes' directions (i.e. you can cross your eyes rather than them always being totally parallel), so when you focus on single object they are both directly pointing at it simultaneously. Even if your attention is osci…
"The drift of the axes of the eyes was first discovered, and on the whole correctly described, by Dodge (1907). He considered that there is no constant point of fixation and suggested the term 'fixation field." Subsequently, nearly all authors studying eye movements confirmed the presence of drifting movements of the eyes (Glezer and Tsukkerman, 1961)."
I did a bit of work on a project that examined the difference between the way that artists and laymen look at images. For this we used eye trackers. This is where I first saw how restless normal eye movement is. The figures in that chapter and preceding it bear this out.
So... attention drifts from one eye to the other, though one eye is dominant, and defines the 'pan' angle of the other. In addition, generally the eyes scan points within an object rather than look directly at the object as a whole. As someone who teaching drawing (and therefore perhaps analytical looking) this was an 'eye opener'.
Edit: link to referenced book: http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/yarbus%20(1967)%20eye%20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotally I've always perceived that dress as blue/brown from the very beginning and I can't "switch" my vision to perceive it otherwise. It's incomprehensible to me that someone can see it as blue/white or even worse as black/gold :)
I don't want to trigger another thread about this old image, but I will point out that there are significant differences in monitor gamut and gamma across devices. Some cheap laptop LCDs crush blacks and whites significantly if you aren't looking at perpendicular dead center. It is for this reason that using light blue or light yellow backgrounds to demarcate ads is sinister -- one can A/B test their marker into lite…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a link with a video or a visual explanation? I dont get what looking unwaveringly out of the eye closest to the camera means - what does it mean to look out of one eye?
Here is Michal Caine talking about this: https://youtu.be/bZPLVDwEr7Y?t=184 He tell a bunch of actors to always 'pick an eye' when in front of a camera. What Michel Cain does not say is that some actors prefer looking out of their 'handed' eye, believing it to have more impact. As a demo of 'handedness' in eyes, try this experiment: 1. Hold one finger around one foot in front of your face. Hold the other at arms leng…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Timothy Leary was telling everyone this decades ago, of course.
Crowley also mentioned it, very likely others before them too