4 ms·

I don't believe the article makes this claim. It's not about people actually ignoring the skyscrapers, but rather the low-level layers of the brain tagging them

I don't believe the article makes this claim. It's not about people actually ignoring the skyscrapers, but rather the low-level layers of the brain tagging them as not worth looking at. This sounds plausible - glassy skyscrapers look a lot like the sky, which isn't very interesting to look at.

brador 7y ago
They strapped people with a headset that tracks their eyes and told them to look at something. The brain will naturally then try to find the special thing the wearer thinks the researchers want them to look at to get a good result. Probably the sky, not the boring buildings.
- fxtentacle 7y ago
  no. they used a smartphone app that is trying to predict where people would look.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    It's a smartphone app in the same sense that any app frontend is a smartphone app: a not very relevant sense. You can find some more details in their validation study: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-attention-software-vas-validation-study.pdf http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-atte...
gfaure 7y ago
No, this is wrong. In reality there's no link between the claim in the article and the way that the human visual system processes its input. The article is trying to make a leap between the output of some algorithm, and what the human visual system does. Meaningless.
- praptak 7y ago
  I guess there is no disagreement. The evidence is indeed worthless. Still the hypothesis is interesting and plausible. Maybe there is a way to test it more rigorously, this time based on actual eye tracking.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  3M put out a validation study[1] of their algorithm, an algorithm explicitly created to simulate what the eye does, and it seems to do ok compared to real eye tracking data in the example shown. Where is your evidence that it was all completely faked? [1] http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-attention-software-vas-validation-study.pdf http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-atte...

brador 7y ago

They strapped people with a headset that tracks their eyes and told them to look at something. The brain will naturally then try to find the special thing the wearer thinks the researchers want them to look at to get a good result. Probably the sky, not the boring buildings.

fxtentacle 7y ago
no. they used a smartphone app that is trying to predict where people would look.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  It's a smartphone app in the same sense that any app frontend is a smartphone app: a not very relevant sense. You can find some more details in their validation study: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-attention-software-vas-validation-study.pdf http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-atte...

gfaure 7y ago

No, this is wrong. In reality there's no link between the claim in the article and the way that the human visual system processes its input. The article is trying to make a leap between the output of some algorithm, and what the human visual system does. Meaningless.

praptak 7y ago
I guess there is no disagreement. The evidence is indeed worthless. Still the hypothesis is interesting and plausible. Maybe there is a way to test it more rigorously, this time based on actual eye tracking.
SiempreViernes 7y ago
3M put out a validation study[1] of their algorithm, an algorithm explicitly created to simulate what the eye does, and it seems to do ok compared to real eye tracking data in the example shown. Where is your evidence that it was all completely faked? [1] http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-attention-software-vas-validation-study.pdf http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1006827O/3msm-visual-atte...