3 ms·
I'm not sure the central argument fully explains the illusion. If you can simultaneously see several stars in the sky using your peripheral vision using averte
by kevinalexbrown 10y ago
I'm not sure the central argument fully explains the illusion.
If you can simultaneously see several stars in the sky using your peripheral vision using averted gaze, why not several dots?
I suspect uncertainty plays a part, but image completion from higher-order feedback that complete the lines might drive the illusion more. Put another way, I believe if you remove the gray lines, the illusion ceases to work.
- takatin 10y agoBecause stars in the sky is a high contrast visual. That applies here too, I increased the contrast using Photoshop and the illusion is gone, you can see all 12 dots perfectly fine — http://imgur.com/a/G4xR4 http://imgur.com/a/G4xR4 I think they are spot on, outside the fovea, contrast detection capability of our eyes dip drastically thereby blending the dots lying outside the fovea with the surrounding grid. Increase the contrast to the point where even the regions outside the fovea can detect it and the illusion goes away.
- kevinalexbrown 10y agoI don't think that explains it, either: Even in low contrast, the illusion fails w/o the lines, as far as I can tell.
- taeric 10y agoWithout the lines... there is much higher contrast. I'm all for hearing an alternative hypothesis, but right now this article's seems pretty good at covering whta is happening.