Motion-induced blindness

src: i.ytimg.com

Motion Induced Blindness (MIB) is a visual perception or perceptual phenomenon observed in the laboratory, where silent visual stimulation disappears as if erased in front of observer eyes when covered with a moving background. Recent studies have shown that microsaccades fight the loss but are not needed and not enough to take into account the MIB.

Video Motion-induced blindness

Ikhtisar

Motion-induced blindness was originally discovered by Grindley and Townsend in 1965, followed by Ramachandran and Gregory in 1991. However it was given more attention and was named when rediscovered by Bonneh, Cooperman, and Sagi in 2001. The researchers initially attributing the cause strictly to the mechanism of attention, seeing the visual system as operating in a win-take-it-all way.

Troxler's fading, discovered by Troxler in 1804, is a very similar phenomenon in which objects that are away from the focus of one's attention disappear and reappear irregularly. There is no need for a moving background for this illusion to occur. Other similar phenomena in which prominent stimuli disappear and reappear including binocular rivalry, found as early as 1593, monocular rivalry, and flash suppression.

Maps Motion-induced blindness

Cause

The illusion of capturing the brain ignores or discards information. This may be one useful trick of the brain, a deficiency - or perhaps both. The ongoing debate over the causes of MIB still exists in current vision research, but the explanation of a genuine concern mechanism has been rejected and new theories have been put forward.

Interhemispheric Switch

There is a correlation between the degree of individual switching during binocular competition and the rate of disappearance and reappearance in MIB in the same individual. This is most evident when the investigation involves an adequate sample of the 8-10X switch level range in the human population. In addition, TMS, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation disorders of the MIB cycle are co-specific, for both hemispheres receiving TMS pulses and MIB cycle cycles, with removal phases susceptible to interference via TMS of the left hemisphere and recurrence phases susceptible to right hemispheric Interference. In this way, MIB is like a binocular competition, where hemispheric manipulation using vestibular caloric stimulation (or TMS) also requires the correct combination of cerebral hemispheres and phases (1/4 possibilities).

From this observation, it can be said that MIB is a phenomenon of interhemispheric switching, an unexpected member of a rhythmic, biphasic, perceptual competition class such as binocular competition and competition of checkered movements. In this formulation, omission in MIB can be understood in terms of cognitive style of the left hemisphere, which selects one possibility of many, and ignores or "denies" the other (rejection being one of the peculiar defense mechanisms of the Left, which is exaggerated in the brain bias left mania). MIB reappearance is attributed to the right hemisphere, the "cognitive style discrepancies detector" assesses all possibilities, and therefore disagrees with a biased decision to ignore the bright yellow stimulus. A natural consequence of this formulation is the predictable relationship between MIB and mood, which has been successfully tested on thousands of viewers who watch the ABC TV Catalyst Program in Australia, where a longer phase of disappearance is observed in euphoric individuals and is very short, or not there is, disappearance is a feature. from stress dysphoria, trauma and depression.

Surface finish

Many psychophysical findings emphasize the importance of surface completion and depth guidance in visual perception. Thus, if the MIB is influenced by these factors will regulate in accordance with simple occlusion principles. In their study, Graf et al. (2002) stereoscopically presented movable tissue stimuli set behind, in front, or in the same plane as static points. They then show the accidental completion of the grid element to the surface that interacts with the static target - creating an illusion of occlusion. When the grid appears before the target, the proportion of removal is greater than when it is on the back or on the same plane. Although at a lower level, MIB still occurs in conditions where perceptual occlusion does not occur (the target is in front of the mask).

The influence of interposition and perceived depth on loss of target at MIB was also demonstrated in a study conducted by Hsu et al. (2010) where the concave target appears behind the surrounding disappear more often than the convex that appears in front of the mask. This effect, though less significant, is replicated in similar settings without the use of motion.

The above experiments show that surface completion and simple occlusion rules can be predicted to modulate MIB. However. they do not explain the origin of the MIB, and may only generate other processes that depend on it. In addition, surface completion theory does not explain the role of motion in this phenomenon.

Charging perception

Hsu et al. (2004) compares MIB with a similar phenomenon of perceptual filling (PFI), which also reveals a prominent dissociation between perception and sensory input. They describe both as a visual attribute that is felt in a particular area of â€‹â€‹the visual field without being in the background (in the same way as color, brightness or texture) thereby driving the loss of the target. They argue that because in MIB and PFI, disappearances; or merging motion stimulus background; becomes more profound with increased eccentricity, decreased contrast and when perceptual groupings with other stimuli are controlled for; two illusions are very likely to be the result of an intermutual process. Because MBI and PFI show structurally similar, it seems plausible that MIBs can be a responsible phenomenon for resolving missing information in blind spots and scotomas where movement is involved.

Stacking successive

Rather than our lack of visual processing, MIB can be a functional side effect of the visual system effort to facilitate better perception of movement. Wallis and Arnold (2009) proposed a plausible explanation of the removal of targets at MIB by linking them to processes responsible for the stroke of motion. In their view, the target of disappearance is a side effect of our vision effort to provide a clear perception of the shape of the move. The MIB shows obstacles in balance and is added in the trailing edge of movement, all reminiscent of the stroke of motion. It seems that what drives the MIB is competition between sensory nerve signals to spatiotemporal lighting and one responding to nearby stationary targets; in which strong signals arise with what we feel at a given moment (Donner et al. , 2008).

Perceptive koroma

A different explanatory approach by New and Scholl (2008) suggests that this phenomenon is another example of our visual system efforts to provide a clear and accurate perception. Since static targets appear unchanged to the background movement, the visual system removes them from our consciousness, throwing them away as opposed to the logic of perception and real life situations; thus treating it as part of the retina or unaffiliated scotoma. Consistent with this account is the fact that retained targets in the retina are more likely to be induced to disappear than those moving across the retina.

Motion-Induced Blindness aka MIB (FixationPursuit-OppDir) on Vimeo

src: i.vimeocdn.com

Implications

MIB revealed that the brain uses mental models to process reality. This phenomenon also allows researchers to study awareness, and attention to objective methods.

When the phenomenon was discovered recently, researchers have speculated on whether MIB occurs outside the laboratory, unnoticed as such. Situations such as driving, where some night-time drivers should see stationary red lights from cars previously disappearing temporarily as they attend the flow of lights from approaching traffic may be the points of the case.