3 ms·
The assumption is that or brains are trained to deal with anything our eyes send them. The observation is that blurred images are a common thing our eyes send,
by moultano 9y ago
The assumption is that or brains are trained to deal with anything our eyes send them. The observation is that blurred images are a common thing our eyes send, while images with random frequencies deleted are not. This model would explain why the blurred images in the paper look relatively normal to us, while the images put through the random filter don't. (Note that this is the inverse of the CNNs response that was better able to classify the random filter images than the blurred ones.)
- mannykannot 9y agoThis seems to me to be as speculative as the sentence that you won't offer any justification for. I don't think your stare-at-the-phone experiment shows what you claim, firstly because, as I am not generally aware of my saccades, I am not sure that I am suppressing them, and secondly, I am generally aware of what is around me, so I can make an informed guess as to what is in my peripheral vision. A better experiment would be to present images that I cannot guess, and this can be done by picking a website that has changing advertisements in the margin. Generally, I cannot tell what they are, unless it is something simple or guessable, until I look at them. I think you are exaggerating our ability to identify things in our peripheral visual field.
- moultano 9y agoYou can try the phone experiment while loading this url on the screen behind it. Sit far enough away that the screen is out of focus when you are focusing on your phone. https://picsum.photos/1024/768/?random https://picsum.photos/1024/768/?random
- mannykannot 9y agoThe same as before: a much-reduced ability to recognize features. In one image, I mistook a panoramic vista for the surface of a pond just a few feet away - and its not so easy to avoid refocusing.