6 ms·

Illusion tricks you into thinking these celebrities are downright hideous

134 points by jamesbritt 14y ago

jamesbritt 14y ago
This is one damn freaky optical illusion.
- opminion 14y ago
  And surprisingly unelaborate.
erickhill 14y ago
Perhaps this is how some caricature artist's eyes work.
jmccaffrey 14y ago
Those looks _weirdly_ similar to what caricaturists draw.
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  Many years ago I came across a simple graphics program that created caricatures. Details are vague, but it involved plotting the key aspects of a "normal" generic face on in some sort of grid-space, then plotting a more typical (or "interesting" face). The program then exaggerated the differences between the two. It was fairly basic code, but remarkably effective.
  - CodeCube 14y ago
    that's awesome, I'd love it if you found a link to that :-)
    - jamesbritt 14y ago
      I have a feeling it's on a C=64 floppy in my closet :)
petegrif 14y ago
Wow. That is truly weird.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dchmiel 14y ago
It would be interesting to get a caricaturists take on this if this is how they see people before they draw them. Also, if they knew of this optical illusion before it was published.
georgemcbay 14y ago
I saw this before but in the context of "average" faces instead of celebrities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6lGNhPujE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6lGNhPujE Both videos (with and without celebs) were pretty trippy. Maybe it is just me but I don't really see the effect on Halle Berry, Kevin Bacon or Hugh Laurie... they all seems to look pretty much the same to me with or without the face flashing.
- droithomme 14y ago
  Thanks for that, I can see it there, they look like monsters. In the celebrity one I didn't see it at all. The one you link to the faces seem to stay aligned better and more consistent dimensions than with the celebrity version. That may be why it worked better.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  It is trippy in a pretty literal sense. I'd wager this is the same mechanism that screws up faces for you when you take psychedelic drugs, except with that you can be staring right at the face and still see it that way. The effect is very similar. Babies have to learn to interpret human faces so that they ignore the parts that don't matter and focus only on what typically distinguishes them. They manage to do it pretty quickly, but perhaps this is how we see faces for the first few days after we're born.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tferris 14y ago
How does this work?
- Peroni 14y ago
  Due to the fact that you are seeing the faces in your peripheral vision for a brief moment, you don't have time to absorb all the detail of the face so your brain fills in the gaps based on memory. Your brain takes shortcuts so the results of 'filling in the gaps' are far from accurate.
  - zerostar07 14y ago
    That's why you don't even need the second image for this effect. The effect goes away if you focus on the actual image instead (using the mouse pointer as reference point)
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  my guess is that the brain does something like PCA, but then over-emphasizes the unusual components (probably because that's what makes each face distinct). in other words, the brain (either hard-wired or learnt) has an "average" face that it uses as a reference. when it has to handle a new face it doesn't "store" the whole face, but only the difference between the new and the average. so what much of your brain deals with is not "the face" but "differences of that particular face from the average". and somehow (see other replies) this illusion is able to connect that up to your conscious mind without the intermediate step that pads it back out by "adding in" the average.
- sp332 14y ago
  Your visual system (well really, all of your sensory inputs) have an effect called adaptation, where they "get bored" of any constant input. Your ears stop telling you about a constant hum, your skin stops telling you about the weight of your clothes, etc. So all the parts of the images that are the same, your optic system gets tired and just stops "seeing" them. So you can literally only see the parts that are different. It's a partial version of this effect: How to Blind Yourself Temporarily https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992208
damian2000 14y ago
Creepy!
tferris 14y ago
This is really weird—it even works when you cover one side with your hand.
- enr 14y ago
  did not believe you. NOW I'm freaked out.
andrewguenther 14y ago
Really cool, but I don't really see its relevancy here on Hacker News...
- nik61 14y ago
  Paul Graham's indications for the content of Hacker News: What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
- DanBC 14y ago
  nik61 (with a dead comment) is right. I'll quote their post. > Paul Graham's indications for the content of Hacker News: > What to Submit > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. This article is interesting, and it also contains a link to the original paper which is more than many article do.
aw3c2 14y ago
I don't visit gawker media sites, could someone post whatever they copied/aggregated? I guess it is a youtube video?
- Karma_Police 14y ago
  well. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT9i99D_9gI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT9i99D_9gI Journal: http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p6968 http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p6968 Thompson: http://mbthompson.com/research/ http://mbthompson.com/research/ Tangen: http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id=1111 http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id=1111
  - aw3c2 14y ago
    Thanks a lot!
DanBC 14y ago
The other linked illusion - (http://io9.com/5906432/an-optical-illusion-that-explains-the-origins-of-imaginary-monsters http://io9.com/5906432/an-optical-illusion-that-explains-the...) - is neat. It (The Troxler Effect) explains why those of us who don't block ads tend not to even see them. I use optical illusions as a gimmick when I talk to doctors. I do service user involvement with mental health stuff. Clinicians talk about "accepting the reality of the patient experience", but sometimes that concept is quite weak. Showing someone an optical illusion (the grey grid and green bar[1] is great for this) and asking them what colour they see - and then proving that they are wrong - is powerful illustration of how strong the mind can be. [1] (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG/220px-Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Gre...)
alister 14y ago
Why does this effect happen on the computer but not in real life? That is, when a friend (or celebrity) is approaching me in my peripheral vision, why don't I see grotesque person for an instant?
- Terretta 14y ago
  Because usually your friend isn't having their face rapidly swapped out with other faces causing your persistence of vision to perceive average blends.
sageikosa 14y ago
If humans have hard-wiring for facial recognition, then likely a lag between the processing of the facial system and the refresh of other optic-visual processing nodes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface The rods in the eye responding more quickly than the cones is a more simple example which you can see by quickly darting your eyes back and forth in a darkened room while looking towards a red-LED clock.

134 points by jamesbritt 14y ago

jamesbritt 14y ago

This is one damn freaky optical illusion.

opminion 14y ago
And surprisingly unelaborate.

erickhill 14y ago

Perhaps this is how some caricature artist's eyes work.

jmccaffrey 14y ago

Those looks _weirdly_ similar to what caricaturists draw.

jamesbritt 14y ago
Many years ago I came across a simple graphics program that created caricatures. Details are vague, but it involved plotting the key aspects of a "normal" generic face on in some sort of grid-space, then plotting a more typical (or "interesting" face). The program then exaggerated the differences between the two. It was fairly basic code, but remarkably effective.
- CodeCube 14y ago
  that's awesome, I'd love it if you found a link to that :-)
  - jamesbritt 14y ago
    I have a feeling it's on a C=64 floppy in my closet :)

petegrif 14y ago

Wow. That is truly weird.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dchmiel 14y ago

It would be interesting to get a caricaturists take on this if this is how they see people before they draw them. Also, if they knew of this optical illusion before it was published.

georgemcbay 14y ago

I saw this before but in the context of "average" faces instead of celebrities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6lGNhPujE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6lGNhPujE Both videos (with and without celebs) were pretty trippy. Maybe it is just me but I don't really see the effect on Halle Berry, Kevin Bacon or Hugh Laurie... they all seems to look pretty much the same to me with or without the face flashing.

droithomme 14y ago
Thanks for that, I can see it there, they look like monsters. In the celebrity one I didn't see it at all. The one you link to the faces seem to stay aligned better and more consistent dimensions than with the celebrity version. That may be why it worked better.
bluedanieru 14y ago
It is trippy in a pretty literal sense. I'd wager this is the same mechanism that screws up faces for you when you take psychedelic drugs, except with that you can be staring right at the face and still see it that way. The effect is very similar. Babies have to learn to interpret human faces so that they ignore the parts that don't matter and focus only on what typically distinguishes them. They manage to do it pretty quickly, but perhaps this is how we see faces for the first few days after we're born.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tferris 14y ago

How does this work?

Peroni 14y ago
Due to the fact that you are seeing the faces in your peripheral vision for a brief moment, you don't have time to absorb all the detail of the face so your brain fills in the gaps based on memory. Your brain takes shortcuts so the results of 'filling in the gaps' are far from accurate.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  That's why you don't even need the second image for this effect. The effect goes away if you focus on the actual image instead (using the mouse pointer as reference point)
andrewcooke 14y ago
my guess is that the brain does something like PCA, but then over-emphasizes the unusual components (probably because that's what makes each face distinct). in other words, the brain (either hard-wired or learnt) has an "average" face that it uses as a reference. when it has to handle a new face it doesn't "store" the whole face, but only the difference between the new and the average. so what much of your brain deals with is not "the face" but "differences of that particular face from the average". and somehow (see other replies) this illusion is able to connect that up to your conscious mind without the intermediate step that pads it back out by "adding in" the average.
sp332 14y ago
Your visual system (well really, all of your sensory inputs) have an effect called adaptation, where they "get bored" of any constant input. Your ears stop telling you about a constant hum, your skin stops telling you about the weight of your clothes, etc. So all the parts of the images that are the same, your optic system gets tired and just stops "seeing" them. So you can literally only see the parts that are different. It's a partial version of this effect: How to Blind Yourself Temporarily https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992208

damian2000 14y ago

Creepy!

tferris 14y ago

This is really weird—it even works when you cover one side with your hand.

enr 14y ago
did not believe you. NOW I'm freaked out.

andrewguenther 14y ago

Really cool, but I don't really see its relevancy here on Hacker News...

nik61 14y ago
Paul Graham's indications for the content of Hacker News: What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
DanBC 14y ago
nik61 (with a dead comment) is right. I'll quote their post. > Paul Graham's indications for the content of Hacker News: > What to Submit > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. This article is interesting, and it also contains a link to the original paper which is more than many article do.

aw3c2 14y ago

I don't visit gawker media sites, could someone post whatever they copied/aggregated? I guess it is a youtube video?

Karma_Police 14y ago
well. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT9i99D_9gI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT9i99D_9gI Journal: http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p6968 http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p6968 Thompson: http://mbthompson.com/research/ http://mbthompson.com/research/ Tangen: http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id=1111 http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id=1111
- aw3c2 14y ago
  Thanks a lot!

DanBC 14y ago

The other linked illusion - (http://io9.com/5906432/an-optical-illusion-that-explains-the-origins-of-imaginary-monsters http://io9.com/5906432/an-optical-illusion-that-explains-the...) - is neat. It (The Troxler Effect) explains why those of us who don't block ads tend not to even see them. I use optical illusions as a gimmick when I talk to doctors. I do service user involvement with mental health stuff. Clinicians talk about "accepting the reality of the patient experience", but sometimes that concept is quite weak. Showing someone an optical illusion (the grey grid and green bar[1] is great for this) and asking them what colour they see - and then proving that they are wrong - is powerful illustration of how strong the mind can be. [1] (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG/220px-Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Gre...)

alister 14y ago

Why does this effect happen on the computer but not in real life? That is, when a friend (or celebrity) is approaching me in my peripheral vision, why don't I see grotesque person for an instant?

Terretta 14y ago
Because usually your friend isn't having their face rapidly swapped out with other faces causing your persistence of vision to perceive average blends.

sageikosa 14y ago

If humans have hard-wiring for facial recognition, then likely a lag between the processing of the facial system and the refresh of other optic-visual processing nodes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface The rods in the eye responding more quickly than the cones is a more simple example which you can see by quickly darting your eyes back and forth in a darkened room while looking towards a red-LED clock.