Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Rotating Reversals

What to notice: You are looking at two spinning rings. When you look at the yellow dot in the center of the spinning ring on the right, the rings spin toward each other; when you look at the red dot in the center of the spinning ring on the left, the rings spin away from each other.

What is happening? The rings are made up of two components:

1) Six ovals that rotate in one direction

2) Lines inside the ovals that rotate in the opposite direction

When you look directly at the display, you perceive the rotation of the ovals.
When you look toward the red dot or the yellow dot, you perceive the rotation of the internal lines in the ring that is further away from the dot.

Comments: Many illusions “work” because they pit two sources of information against each other (look at the first illusion in this blog for an example). In the rotating reversals demonstration above, the global motion of the ovals is pitted against the internal motion of the lines. To see what I mean, let’s take a look at one ring by itself in the demonstration below.

There are two sources of information.

The global motion rotates counter-clockwise; the internal motion rotates clockwise.

Your visual system has to “choose” how to perceive these conflicting sources of information. In other words, will perception be guided by the motion of the ovals? Or by the motion of the internal lines? Or by a combination of these two? Or will you be able to see both types of motion at the same time, while keeping their signals separate?

When you look directly at the one-ring display, you can discern both sources of information (the ring will spin one way, and the motion caused by the internal lines goes the other way). But when you look at this display peripherally, it becomes difficult to separate the two sources of information, and the internal motion drives the perceived direction of the ring.

(To look at the display with your peripheral vision, focus your eyes on a spot a few inches above the display.)

In the two-ring display, I simply flipped one of the rings so that there would be a conflict in perceived direction of motion when you focus on one dot or the other.

Why is there a difference when you view the display foveally (i.e., directly) and when you view the display peripherally?
The foveal visual system is quite different from the peripheral visual system. We know, for instance, that the world looks blurrier to the peripheral visual system than to the foveal visual system (vision scientists would phrase this as, “The peripheral visual system has poorer spatial resolution than the foveal visual system”). But a blurry peripheral perception alone does not seem to explain why the disks appear to reverse direction. If you blur the display and then look at it in the fovea, the rings do not seem to reverse motion. Well, at least to me and others who have done this experiment in my laboratory, they don’t. I’ll be interested to hear your comments on this topic.

In the Shapiro, Knight, and Lu talk at the recent Society for Neuroscience conference (Nov. 2008), we hypothesized that the machinery of the foveal visual system allows us to represent multiple features simultaneously, but this machinery is absent in the periphery. The peripheral visual system seems to mix up the features that are available in the scene. We called this “feature blur,” and we showed a number of illusions that are consistent with this hypothesis.

At first, the “feature blur” hypothesis may seem counter-intuitive: when you focus on one point, the features in the periphery don’t often appear to jumble together. I think that the reason that some, but not all, displays show strong feature blur is that the effect depends greatly on the contrast with the background. To see this, move the lever in the single-ring display to adjust the background luminance. When the background is brighter or darker than the luminance inside the ovals, the ring no longer reverses when you focus on a spot a few inches above the dot.

Peter Meilstrup, at the University of Washington, points out that the spinning rings also juxtapose motion over different scales. The brain can register “short-range” motion (i.e., motion over a small region) and “long-range” motion (i.e., motion over a large region). Changing the luminance of the background also changes the relative responses to short-range and long-range motion. When the background is gray, the short-range motion signal is strong, but when the background is black or white, the short-range motion signal is weak. As a result, processes that respond to long-range motion energy may predominate against a white or black background, but not against a gray background.

Here are two references (courtesy of Peter) that examine the juxtaposition of long-range and short-range motion processes:

G. Mather, P. Cavanagh, and S. M. Anstis (1985). A moving display which opposes short-range and long-range signals. Perception, 14(2): 163–166.

C. Chubb and G. Sperling (1989). Two motion perception mechanisms revealed through distance-driven reversal of apparent motion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 86(8): 2985–2989.

* * * * * *

History of the illusion: As indicated on the displays, the illusion has been developed independently in two laboratories, and was presented by both laboratories at the Society for Neuroscience conference in Washington, D.C., in November 2008.

I developed the effect as an extension of the illusions that Emily Knight, Zhong Lin Lu, and I presented at the May 2008 Best illusion of the year contest (here is a link to the pdf of the entry) and as an extension of our work on “feature blur” in the visual periphery.

Peter Meilstrup and Mike Shadlen presented their version of the illusion as part of a continuation of Shadlen and Movshon’s work on motion signals in the brain (specifically, in area MT of the visual cortex). Here is a link to Professor Shadlen’s webpage.

* * * * * *

Here are code snippets for you to post the illusion on your blog or website, if you would like.

Two rings demonstration

<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/" src="http://arthur.shapiro.googlepages.com/RotatingReveralsForIllusionSciences.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="535" width="555"></embed>

One ring demonstration

<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/" src="http://arthur.shapiro.googlepages.com/OneRingForIS.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="540" width="500">></embed>

* * * * * *
Once again, I feel a need to apologize for the long delay between posts. I have changed the tag line on my blog to read “An illusion whenever I can get around to it.” I find it quite difficult to manage the blog while the semester is in progress.

Thursday, Dec. 18, 12:15
The site was running up against a google-pages bandwidth limitation and so people who visited were not able to see the illusion. I moved the illusion files to a different host site--that should fix the problem for now.


opiated said...

Thanks for coming back after the long absence with this excellent post.

Alex said...

Glad to see more posts showing up. I am fascinated by the illusions that you post and even moreso by the explanations of why they work the way they work. It's always a welcome break in my day. :)

Anonymous said...

Hello friend,

My name is Darshan and I am the author of a delicious GK blog The SciTech Journal (http://thescitechjournal.blogspot.com/) I find your blog interesting and hence this idea hit upon my mind: Are you interested in link exchange on our blogs? My blog The SciTech Journal, you see, is unique one and holds good potential. I'll put your blog link in my blog roll and in return you do the same form on yours. In addition to getting us SEO advantage it might add value to our visitors as both our blogs are rich with unique content.

Write to me if you think the same way about it :)

Thanks and best regards,
Darshan Chande
(darshanchande @ gmail.com)

Lee J Haywood said...

I don't really see this one, although I'm not sure what 'away' and 'toward' mean in this context. I can see the effect described under the second animation, however.

BrianM said...

Have you studied the brain via qEEG while looking at areas of activation? Karl Pribrum has a whole series of articles about this he calls the Holonomic mind theory.

An excellent resource and someone who is one of the top Neuro-Scientists in the world is Jay Gunkelman. He runs a blog at qeegsupport.com. Have a look if you have a chance. He may be able to offer some insight or direct you to others that are working in that area of research.

Anonymous said...

They're both rotating in the same direction. I can't do anything to make them rotate in opposing directions.

I wonder if this is connected to the fact that I can't see 3D illusions, either?

Anonymous said...

The goggles, they do nothing!

Unknown said...

As a survivor of traumatic brain injury, I have learned that hemispherically asymmetrical neuro-processing skews my visual perception.

When individuals are challenged to discern aspects of common illusions, may this challenge manifest variance in foveal vs peripheral dominance among individuals; or hemispherical asymmetry within an individual?

Carley said...

When I focus exclusively on either red or yellow dot, I see only the flickering of the bands within each oval. There is no rotation of the circle around either colored dot. I have to look at the "whole" to see rotation of the circle. Yes?

Anonymous said...

Like Sandy on Dec 21, when I look carefully, I see the moving circles rotating in the same direction - you didn't flip them. They both move counterclockwise. (Jan 18) But when I look at one dot or the other, the one I'm not looking at seems to move counterclockwise (because I'm perceiving the apparent motion of the stripes), but the one I'm actually looking at doesn't seem to be moving at all, just sort of wobbling, yet the circles appear in different places. Intellectually I know that adds up to moving, but somehow the perception is that they wobble, dart in and out a little, and are in different places without moving steadily. I'm not sure why my mind labels it that way.

Anonymous said...

wonderful web blogger

Anonymous said...

Hey, I just Stumbled Upon this - and I am a Bucknell student! Great stuff, keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

What do you mean by inches? What "inches" means?

Marc said...

You have tampered with the evil spirits of the Internet. Curse your magic, Warlock. Your sorcery shall have now power over me.

Anonymous said...

I’ve been reading the section for quite a long time but was feeling shy to become a member.
today some new cheap sun glasses links for my friends!
[URL=http://sunglasses-for-less.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info/map.html]sunglasses for less[/URL]
[URL=http://sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]cheap sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://chanel-silver-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]chanel silver sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://mazzi-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]mazzi sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://perscription-sunglasses-valentino.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]perscription sunglasses valentino[/URL]
[URL=http://sunglasses-clip-on.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]sunglasses clip on[/URL]
[URL=http://top-brands-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]top brands sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://famous-designers-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]famous designers sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://chole-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]chole sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://versace-mens-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]versace mens sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://julbo-sunglasses-website.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]julbo sunglasses website[/URL]
[URL=http://versace-cutout-temple-wrap-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]versace cutout temple wrap sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://coco-chanel-replica-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]coco chanel replica sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://prada-sunglasses-06e.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info/map.html]prada sunglasses 06e[/URL]
[URL=http://kids-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]kids sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://older-armani-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]older armani sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://styleyes-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]styleyes sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://sunglasses-bugatti.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]sunglasses bugatti[/URL]
[URL=http://christain-dior-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]christain dior sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://victoria-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]victoria sunglasses[/URL]
[URL=http://roxy-foxy-sunglasses.sunglassescheapcheapcheap.info]roxy foxy sunglasses[/URL]

Your [b]sun glasses[/b] doctor

Anonymous said...

its the twilight effect. like about 20 minutes after sunset. greyish light is harder to discern objects in than actual daylight or nighttime.

Anonymous said...

Belle demonstration.
Il est dommage qu'il n'y en ait pas d'autres.

Stranger World said...

Amazing illusions | Stunning optical illusions collections Swimming Fish optical illusion was originally created by Emily Knight and Arthur Shapiro. It was a 2007 Finalist in the Best Illusion of the Year Contest hosted by the Vision Sciences Society.

Justin Charles said...

I have not visited in a while...Iam very glad to see that post still pop up now and then...

I hope you enjoy your winter break...we should catch up soon...

rental elf said...

Nice article, thanks for the information.

sewa mobil said...

Nice article, thanks for the information.

Torque Wrench said...

Hey, I've seen a lot like this, i thought it was a game or some sort of illusion puzzles, not until I bumped into your post, you cleared my doubts with it, thanks for sharing this make a big help,

Logan and Amy said...

Wow, I think this is so cool. My eyes are playing trick on me.
classic cribs

megaman games said...

hey, this illusion is just amazing!

Unknown said...

Optical illusion art , also known as op art, is a mathematically-based genre that produces optical illusions.

Sue said...

I like the rotating reversals demonstration. It is interesting how two conflicting sets of information can create this effect.

Mindy Schaper said...

I came across this illusion while doing homework for my psychology class. Clever and amusing. Thank you!

optičke varke said...

Great Optical Illusions That Prove You Can’t Trust Your Own Mind!!!!

Online Marketing said...

Very exciting illution!

SEO Melbourne said...

Nice science!

Mr Wahyu said...

Great website! It looks very good! Keep up the great work!

blog jerawat said...

Nice article, thanks for the information. It's very complete information. I will bookmark for next reference.

Unknown said...

Thanks so much for writing all of the excellent information!

Unknown said...

Thak you for the pdf ! I might have to let go and have some fun today :)

tas cantik said...

They're both rotating in the same direction.TAS WANITA TERBARU

dokter said...

Thanks for coming back after the long absence with this excellent post.www.sehatdokter.com

Unknown said...

Things are very open and intensely clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very beneficial.

Unknown said...

Thank you very much! My friends and family members will be happy after hearing about this

Unknown said...

I really liked this part of the article. with a nice and interesting topics have helped a lot of people who do not challenge things people should know.. you need more publicize this so many people who know about it are rare for people to know this... success for you..... .!

/*********google analytics*/ /*********google analytics end */