Sam Schwarzkopf
@sampendu.bsky.social
Kiwified neuroscientist & perception researcher at the School of Optometry & Vision Science at Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand. Lab website: sampendu.net
#UltimaDragon
#UltimaDragon
Hiroshi Ashida just suggested that to me too - you're both right. The effect appears to be due to a depth order effect so has nothing to do with the implied perspective. When the lines both extend across the triangle borders (and thus look like they are in front of it) the depth percept disappears:
November 12, 2025 at 9:58 PM
Hiroshi Ashida just suggested that to me too - you're both right. The effect appears to be due to a depth order effect so has nothing to do with the implied perspective. When the lines both extend across the triangle borders (and thus look like they are in front of it) the depth percept disappears:
Yes that's how it looks to me anyway. Although perhaps it's less strong in the latter examples than with the triangles? We'd need to test this properly to know for sure of course.
November 12, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Yes that's how it looks to me anyway. Although perhaps it's less strong in the latter examples than with the triangles? We'd need to test this properly to know for sure of course.
...or even triangles in a classical Ponzo illusion. The whole thing is even more mysterious than I initially thought! 🤔🧐
November 12, 2025 at 3:20 AM
...or even triangles in a classical Ponzo illusion. The whole thing is even more mysterious than I initially thought! 🤔🧐
...using converging black lines on top of those inducers...
November 12, 2025 at 3:19 AM
...using converging black lines on top of those inducers...
Okay, so the plot thickens. The weirdness seems to have nothing to do with illusory contours because it also occurs when you use black lines. Whether it is full triangles...
November 12, 2025 at 3:18 AM
Okay, so the plot thickens. The weirdness seems to have nothing to do with illusory contours because it also occurs when you use black lines. Whether it is full triangles...
The image is based on a figure in Kanizsa's 1976. Never thought I'd say this, but thanks to Lydia Maniatis for the find.
November 12, 2025 at 3:00 AM
The image is based on a figure in Kanizsa's 1976. Never thought I'd say this, but thanks to Lydia Maniatis for the find.
Some of these could still be from self-fulfilling prophecies (if you think your imagery is 0 in vividness then perhaps you don't bother in other questions) but at least some of these results speak against that (like the dream questions or the spontaneous contents of people's imagery).
October 6, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Some of these could still be from self-fulfilling prophecies (if you think your imagery is 0 in vividness then perhaps you don't bother in other questions) but at least some of these results speak against that (like the dream questions or the spontaneous contents of people's imagery).
Yes this is at the core of my interest in this. Right now these vividness questions are too open-ended. In future work we want to devise ways to titrate this better relative to other experiences. But the interesting thing in our present results is how much even these vague questions relate to.
October 6, 2025 at 10:32 PM
Yes this is at the core of my interest in this. Right now these vividness questions are too open-ended. In future work we want to devise ways to titrate this better relative to other experiences. But the interesting thing in our present results is how much even these vague questions relate to.
Brains contain neurons. It doesn't contain images*. Neither does the JPG on your computer hard drive (Not that I am a big fan of software allegories but it works in this case).
(* Technically, the only exception is the retina which is arguably part of the brain but it "contains" an actual image.)
(* Technically, the only exception is the retina which is arguably part of the brain but it "contains" an actual image.)
October 5, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Brains contain neurons. It doesn't contain images*. Neither does the JPG on your computer hard drive (Not that I am a big fan of software allegories but it works in this case).
(* Technically, the only exception is the retina which is arguably part of the brain but it "contains" an actual image.)
(* Technically, the only exception is the retina which is arguably part of the brain but it "contains" an actual image.)
Depends on what you call "exists" or "image". Strictly speaking, the brain doesn't contain images of any kind and that is independent of the mental imagery debate. But that's also missing the point of this debate.
October 5, 2025 at 9:43 PM
Depends on what you call "exists" or "image". Strictly speaking, the brain doesn't contain images of any kind and that is independent of the mental imagery debate. But that's also missing the point of this debate.
But here is the funny thing: it's not like I cannot do that. I just do it inside my head (or rather somewhere else outside my head). I don't "see" a plane zooming through the church but in my mind I know exactly what that looks like. Is that the same thing? I still don't really know... 🤷♂️
October 5, 2025 at 10:57 AM
But here is the funny thing: it's not like I cannot do that. I just do it inside my head (or rather somewhere else outside my head). I don't "see" a plane zooming through the church but in my mind I know exactly what that looks like. Is that the same thing? I still don't really know... 🤷♂️
The more I learn about this the more I think that talking about aphants like it affects all senses equally in everyone is part of the problem. Our study was specifically about vision but I think people range widely in their inner senses.
October 5, 2025 at 10:54 AM
The more I learn about this the more I think that talking about aphants like it affects all senses equally in everyone is part of the problem. Our study was specifically about vision but I think people range widely in their inner senses.
Well it's confounded by lots of things, such as whether you actually remember dreaming. But I met people who say they dream, but not visually.
October 5, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Well it's confounded by lots of things, such as whether you actually remember dreaming. But I met people who say they dream, but not visually.
Doesn't matter what you call it but it's logically fallacious.
October 5, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Doesn't matter what you call it but it's logically fallacious.
Now you're adding in reverse inference (which remains popular as ever in cognitive neuroscience...) 😉
October 5, 2025 at 10:29 AM
Now you're adding in reverse inference (which remains popular as ever in cognitive neuroscience...) 😉
Depends on how you define it. Like with #aphantasia I'd say we need a much stricter definition. Based on that I don't think there were any hyperaphantasics in our study although that's hard to say as we would need better tests for that. But based on conventional definitions (VVIQ): yes.
October 5, 2025 at 10:19 AM
Depends on how you define it. Like with #aphantasia I'd say we need a much stricter definition. Based on that I don't think there were any hyperaphantasics in our study although that's hard to say as we would need better tests for that. But based on conventional definitions (VVIQ): yes.
But your nugget test simply replaces one kind of subjective self-report with another. It isn't addressing the epistemological problem. Your test cannot be validated. But more importantly, even if we -could- validate it, we wouldn't know if that measures people's capacity for imagery.
October 5, 2025 at 10:11 AM
But your nugget test simply replaces one kind of subjective self-report with another. It isn't addressing the epistemological problem. Your test cannot be validated. But more importantly, even if we -could- validate it, we wouldn't know if that measures people's capacity for imagery.
You are falling into the same epistemological trap so much of this research has been stuck in. We aren't at the point of using stop watch. We don't even know if people are running or cycling or swimming or if anyone is moving anywhere at all. You can't do quantitative science on this without that.
October 5, 2025 at 10:02 AM
You are falling into the same epistemological trap so much of this research has been stuck in. We aren't at the point of using stop watch. We don't even know if people are running or cycling or swimming or if anyone is moving anywhere at all. You can't do quantitative science on this without that.
(* whatever 'literal' means we aren't sure about either - it continues to cause debate 😏)
October 3, 2025 at 3:34 AM
(* whatever 'literal' means we aren't sure about either - it continues to cause debate 😏)
Yes definitely. In fact I know someone who says they only imagine touch. The self-categorising question where the apple is in front of the head could in theory be interpreted as "feeling" the apple in front of the head but not seeing anything. We didn't go into the non-visual aspects at all so far.
October 3, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Yes definitely. In fact I know someone who says they only imagine touch. The self-categorising question where the apple is in front of the head could in theory be interpreted as "feeling" the apple in front of the head but not seeing anything. We didn't go into the non-visual aspects at all so far.
Well I think that depends :
For someone who sees it before them, they could presumably follow their mental lines? I wouldn't know because for me, I just draw what it looks like in my head. But for an aphant I know, they don't do it. They can only copy what they can see with their eyes.
For someone who sees it before them, they could presumably follow their mental lines? I wouldn't know because for me, I just draw what it looks like in my head. But for an aphant I know, they don't do it. They can only copy what they can see with their eyes.
October 2, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Well I think that depends :
For someone who sees it before them, they could presumably follow their mental lines? I wouldn't know because for me, I just draw what it looks like in my head. But for an aphant I know, they don't do it. They can only copy what they can see with their eyes.
For someone who sees it before them, they could presumably follow their mental lines? I wouldn't know because for me, I just draw what it looks like in my head. But for an aphant I know, they don't do it. They can only copy what they can see with their eyes.