2002/02/12psyc202, term 2, copyright jason harrison 20021 illusions tricking the processes that...
TRANSCRIPT
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002
1
Illusions
tricking the processes that estimate properties of the world
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 2
Task of visual perception• estimate properties of the
world– i.e., construct a hypothesis
• Hypotheses formed via– bottom-up information
from images on retinas– top-down knowledge
from “memory”
“Memory”
Images
HypothesisGenerator
Hypothesis(percept)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 3
Example• Perception of 3D depth (dented surface)
from shading pattern in imageMemory:
Lighting is usually from above
HypothesisGenerator
Perception of 3D dent in surface
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 4
Two possible hypotheses
• Corresponds to physical reality– veridical perception (“true perception”)– occurs most of the time
• Does not correspond to physical reality– visual illusion
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 5
Four kinds of illusions
1. Distortions2. Ambiguities3. Paradoxes4. Hallucinations
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 6
1. Distortions
• Perception is not accurate• e.g., incorrect size or shape
• Example Ponzo Illusion
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 7
1. Distortions
• Perception is not accurate• e.g., incorrect size or shape
• Example Ponzo Illusion
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 8
Explanation of Ponzo Illusion• “inappropriate” use of perspective and
size constancy
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 14
How versus What pathways
• distortion illusions affect “what” pathway• but not the “How” pathway
– e.g., perception confused, action not confused
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 15
2. Ambiguities
• percept is not stable (alternates)• Example 1: Necker cube
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 16
2. Ambiguities
• percept is not stable (alternates)• Example 1: Necker cube
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 17
2. Ambiguities
• percept is not stable (alternates)• Example 1: Necker cube
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 18
2. Ambiguities
• percept is not stable (alternates)• Example 1: Necker cube
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 19
Explanation of Necker cube
• multiple high-level interpretations are compatiable with image
• brain attempts to find (remember) structures compatible with data
• if more than one is found, the percept alternates– not a blend of alternatives– alternation much like binocular rivalry
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 20
Example 2: Rabbit-duck (Jastrow)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 21
Explanation of Rabbit-duck
• multiple high-level interpretations are compatiable with image
• brain attempts to find (remember) structures compatible with data– memory biased towards “favourite”
interpretation
• if more than one is found, the percept alternates– not a blend of alternatives– alternation much like binocular rivalry
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 22
If interpreted as 3D, not possible forthese cubes to existin the world
3. Paradoxes• No hypothesis possible -- no consistency• Example 1: Impossible figure (Reuterswärd)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 23
If interpreted as 3D, not possible forthis box to existin the world
Example 2: Impossible figure (McAllister)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 24
If interpreted as 3D, not possible forthis city to existin the world
Example 3: Impossible figure (Escher)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 25
Explanation
• no hypothesis can account for the entire image
• brain can find local interpretations (e.g. cubes) based on rules such as T-junctions, shading, etc.
• interpretation dependant on local area and path of attention through image
• Result: paradoxical percept – different hypothesis for each part of the image
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 26
Perception ofoccluding triangle,even thoughit’s not really there
4. Hallucinations (fictions)
• Hypothesis independent of reality– e.g., “seeing” things that aren’t there
• Example 1: Illusory figure (Kanisza)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 27
Explanation of illusory figure
• a triangle is “imagined” since it is the simplest account of image pattern– visual completion
• brain hypothesizes such structures– must be no evidence against the
interpretation– Charles Bonnet syndrome
• Note: no replacement of image properties– no filling in of triangular occulder
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 28
Example 2: Vegetable Man (Arcimboldo)
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 29
Explanation of illusory figure
• a man is “imagined” since it is the simplest account of image pattern– abstract level -- overall form
• brain hypothesizes such structures– even if details don’t fit exactly– day to day differences in your friends and
family
• Note: no replacement of image properties– vegetables are still seen
2002/02/12 PSYC202, Term 2, Copyright Jason Harrison 2002 30
Four kinds of illusions1. Distortions2. Ambiguities3. Paradoxes4. HallucinationsOne explanation Hypotheses formation via
– bottom-up information from images on retinas
– top-down knowledge from “memory”