Optical illusion investigated for use in ASD diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

First I saw the dots. Then I saw spinning in one direction with the white dots in the foreground, then I saw spinning in the opposite direction with the black dots in the foreground, then I saw the black dots spinning in one direction while the white dots simultaneously spun in another direction, and then I realized this is a very good representation of quantum physics.

I see the cylinder, although that could just be because I saw the text below the image before doing anything more than glancing at the image, so I knew what I was "supposed" to see. It doesn't change direction for me, though, it jumps backward and starts turning over again.

The thing is as much a test of the power of suggestion as anything else.

It suggests people with autism won't see a spinning cylinder. So that influences what people see, or want or don't want to see and what they will admit to seeing.

Dots are more apparent to me than the cylinder, although I can see both. I think that the time it took for the image to load, the duration of the loop, and knowing about the dots vs cylinder thing throws it off. I wonder how it would have struck me under different circumstances.

Well I doubt any of us had a camera studying our pupil response while we looked at it, so we can't exactly use it as a home diagnostic aid without the proper equipment.

There are lots of optical illusions and many people can see them with or without having autism.

Just google 'optical Illusions' in google images and see for yourself.

Some are very artistic.

I might get some of these to decorate my walls.

I have not read this whole thread----but, I DID read the whole article, and what I can't figure-out (I saw the dots AND the cylinder----and I read that the whole thing is about the contraction of the pupils), is what was meant when the article said that people see one "side" being black and one "side" being white, cuz I didn't see it like that. The first thing I thought-of was the Hadron Collider. I saw everything (black and white dots) sort-of mixed together----I didn't see it as the whites being all together, and then the blacks being separate; I guess that means I was concentrating on the dots.

Why is there a red dot in the middle front of the picture, any idea?

Could be there to cue your unconscious mind that there is a center, and therefore an axis of rotation, and therefore, that the dots form a cylinder.

That is what I thought as well at first but if it was the case, the red dot should be behind white dots and before the black dots. However, the red dot is in the forefront.

I have just checked it again now and I notice that if I concentrate on the red dot (not moving), the cylinder appears easier to me. Otherwise my eyes move with the dots, and I see dots, only dots...

That's why I only read: "Optical Illusion Investigated For Use In ASD Diagnosis, The Age has an article about an optical illusion, being investigated as a possible screening/diagnosis tool for Autism..." before clicking the link (I intentionally didn't read the quote concluding it might contain spoilers) and after clicking it I went straight to the picture, without reading anything - in order not co create any bias. So unless I subconsciously read the "cylinder" somewhere (which is possible because I practiced "speed reading" in the past and I take the information from surrounding texts) my experience shouldn't be a result of the power of suggestion.

Saw the cylinder immediately. Also manage to see both the goblet and the profiles simultaneously in this one, which perceptual psychologists say can't be done because of figure-ground processing. Bollocks.

There is plenty they don't know about perception yet and yes it does seem like bollocks when our own perception is contrary to their theories. Lets not forget these are just theories and never apply to 100% of people.

I see things which most people don't and also feel sensations that almost everyone around me don't - like a distant earthquake, or a vehicle in the next street. I also use both sides of my brain.

I guess that in some of these experiments I would be in the negative number of people who did or didn't respond to their theories.

The test doesn't work if you know the cue beforehand

Like the ambiguous rabbit-duck image...you say duck you only see duck....

@Tem, @cyberdad

Good evening

My issue with the idea that "everyone" will see X or Y, or that if you see Z then you "absolutely" have W Condition, is that when someone doesn't exhibit the predicted response, the "experts" all too often simply dismiss that person's perception or find another way to ignore the inconveniently contrary data.

That is not good science, not at all; good science is actively looking for contrary data, so it can adjust its theories and models accordingly. It's more interested in being "true" than in being "right" - the first is about learning, the second about ego.

Not-good science is a lot easier, of course, but it has horrendous consequences if taken far enough. As a sad example, are you aware that, even in the latter half of the 20th century, physicians in America were being taught that human infants do not feel pain? Horrendous. The NYT article linked below dates from 1987. That is not a typo. Thirty-one years ago.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal ... n-medicine

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/24/scie ... nally.html

I'm far less inclined to trust this type of "expert" these days, being trained as a scientist in the old dispensation myself, and having seen various "experts" in action on more than one occasion . Your mileage may vary...

I just tried this on my daughter (no cues or give-aways)

She's 12 and told me she saw "rotating dots" (her words)

When I pressed her and asked if she saw shapes (expecting her to say cylinder) she came up with "I can see three different shapes - circles, triangles and rectangles"

Tried it again 10 min later and she told me exactly the same (word for word)

interesting...