| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Why Criticism Matters: Translating the Code Into Everyday Language | Main | Bog Blog »

January 03, 2011

WYSIWYG

Our visual system to seamlessly informs us about and guide us through the outside world so that we typically hardly notice its actions. However, our brain has limited processing capacity, and must filter visual input to extract the more biologically meaningful features from the totality of the visual scene. Optical illusions, in which a perception about an external scene does not match the physical reality, emerge from this filtering process. Illusions thus reveal a dissociation between the physical world and our perception of it, allowing a glimpse into the workings of the mind. 

Ebbinghaus Illusion The Ebbinghaus illusion is a widely studied optical effect in which the perceived size of a circle is affected by circles of a different size surrounding it. In this illustration, most people perceive the orange circle in the right hand group as larger than the orange circle on the left. This perception is variable among individuals, with the strength of the Ebbinghaus illusion reflecting both developmental and environmental influences. The effect is absent in young subjects and in some individuals with autism, and it also varies in strength among subjects from different cultures. It can also be abolished entirely if the central circle is an object of known scale, such as a coin.

A report from last month’s Nature Neuroscience (Schwarzkopf et al.) reported an intriguing correlation between the strength of the Ebbinghaus illusion and individual functional variation in the brain. Visual information enters the body through the retina, where it is partially processed and relayed toward the primary visual cortex (V1) at the rear of the brain. The surface area devoted to V1 is known to vary by up to threefold in the general population. 

Schwarzkopf et al hypothesized that the individual variations in V1 area might contribute to variability in optical perception. To test this idea, they measured the strength of the Ebbinghaus illusion in large numbers of volunteers and then performed functional magnetic resonance imaging on each to measure the area of V1. They found a strong negative correlation between V1 area and the extent to which volunteers perceived the size illusion – the smaller the V1 area, the more pronounced the visual illusion. They found a similarly strong negative correlation between V1 area and the perceptual strength of a second illusion -- even though there was no inter-individual correlation in the strengths of the two illusions. There was weak or no correlation between illusion perceptual strength and the surface area of other cortical regions. 

Thus the strength of the Ebbinghaus illusion correlates with a specific neuronal property, the functionally defined primary visual cortex, suggesting that variability in V1 could affect conscious experience of the physical world. Since the strength of the Ebbinghaus illusion varies with age and cultural background, this observation further suggests that usage can modify perception or even aggregate neuronal behavior at a very basic level. In terms of the anatomical basis for the correlation observed, the authors speculate that a larger V1 might allow finer-grained perception, reducing crosstalk effects such as those which create this illusion.

Illustration obtained from Wikimedia Commons, as uploaded by user Fibonacci

 

Schwarzkopf DS, Song C, Rees G. The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size. Nat Neurosci 14:28-30.

 

 

Posted by George Wilkinson at 12:00 AM | Permalink

Comments

The Ebbinghaus (or Titchener) illusion fails the test of functional demonstration as Schwarzkopf et al suggest on their quoted experiment.
If one considers the many ancillary elements that enter into the conscious awareness of visual perception one is left with the idea that not always WYHIWI (Not Always What You Hear Is What Is).
For more:
Phantoms in the Brain by V Ramachandran and Self Comes to Mind by A Damasio

Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 3, 2011 4:29:09 PM

The illusion is strikingly strong for me when viewed as directed, but vanishes totally (for me) when neither center circle is the focus of attention, e.g., if I look between them. The illusion vanishes instantly. I've never seen this noted but perhaps it is relevant because the image is not in the macula?

Posted by: Peter Taylor Coates | Jan 3, 2011 4:37:55 PM

The macula has little to do with creating visual distortions.
Illusions embody more active cerebral elements than just the merely sensory ones.
I'm referring to those in other regions of the neopallium.
Those others suport the bases for the legerdemain of the illusion.

Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 3, 2011 4:47:45 PM

Interesting, Peter. I don't notice a huge difference between the two circles even when looking at them directly (here is an MRI I once got, when comparing it with others online I did notice the back part of my brain seemed a little large!), but your trick of looking in the middle seems to make the difference disappear entirely--maybe it's something about comparing them both at the same moment when they are equally peripheral, rather than switching back and forth between centering on one and centering on the other.

Speaking of optical illusions, here's a fun one I came across recently--go to this page, follow the "click me to get trippy" link, stare at the center for at least 30 seconds, then look at your hand or something...trippy indeed! I've seen things like this before but the effect was never quite as strong as with this one.

Posted by: Jesse M. | Jan 3, 2011 5:13:55 PM

Jesse, tried it three times and got a very, very slight sensation of seeing a wavy image when looking away and at a dark, glazed sliding door.
Should the experience have been more pronounced?
I wear glasses. Would that have impacted on the result?
Like Peter, the impression of different sized orange spots disappeared when I looked between them.
Fascinating.

Posted by: Laturb | Jan 4, 2011 9:15:28 PM

Laturb, for me it was very pronounced, but maybe it's different for different people. I wear glasses too so that's probably not the issue, unless your prescription is a lot stronger or you wear them for farsightedness (reading glasses). How good is your peripheral vision with glasses? I tried cupping my hands so I could just see the central part of the screen and the effect was a lot weaker--even though you should look at the center I think it helps to kind of keep your visual awareness on as wide a section on the screen as possible (and to sit close enough so it's filling up a lot of your field of vision).

Posted by: Jesse M. | Jan 5, 2011 7:18:34 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Sundar on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

flowers rainbows on Lift up your voices: The century-long battle for women's freedom

mr.ed on wagner in new york?

mirel on Here’s how to change the world

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

X on Getting Smarter

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed