Right side v left side

breadmonkey

Can anyone explain what's going on here? I came across this in another forum on boards.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22492511-5005375,00.html

I absolutely cannot get her to go anti clockwise.

hoolio

There are two images on the screen at any one time, even if you only see one. It similar to optical illusions like the faces/candle sticks



It's basically a fancy version of something like this:



where you can see either of the faces as being the "front" one.

If you freeze an image of the dancer you can pick out two distinct images, and which one of these you perceive when you look at it will determine whether you see clockwise of anticlockwise rotation.

All that said, this test does nothing to determine whether your are right or left brained. The concept of dominace of one hemisphere is overstated imo anyway.

The dancer measures hemisperic dominance to a similar accuracy that thespark tells you your IQ - not at all.

_Whimsical_

I initially saw her going clockwise and then next time I looked at it I saw her moving anti clockwise. I can change it at will by concentrating just on her feet and deciding which way I want to see them turn ... once I can see her feet moving clockwise or anti clockwise the rest of her follows.
Trying to figure it out probably indicates that you are left brained more than actually seeing her move anti clockwise!

hoolio

Yep, i make it switch by looking at her legs, and choosing which is in front.

breadmonkey

hoolio wrote: »

Yep, i make it switch by looking at her legs, and choosing which is in front.

Just will not work for me.

The dancer measures hemisperic dominance to a similar accuracy that thespark tells you your IQ - not at all.

Yeah, I was afraid that would be the case.

Also, while I'm here. You know those pictures that just look like a bunch of fuzzy dots but they form an image if you stare at them? I have never EVER been able to see the image despite lots of trying. Why is that?

hoolio

Try it this way.

Firstly, cos i'm bored, here are the two images, should make it clearer what i mean:



So you can see now hopefully two images, in stationary form anyway.

Now what i do is (left) click and hold down on the dancer when she's moving, then if you try to drag the image it should just pause. Do that so she's frozen with her legs crossed somewhat, then pick one of the images, then let go of the mouse to let her move again. Try it picking a different leg to be the front one.



Does that work?

breadmonkey

There must be something wrong with me. I freeze the image and see the anti-clockwise image as you've described but once I let go she goes off spinning clockwise again!

Thrill

hoolio wrote: »

Does that work?

Perfectly.

hoolio

Lol, its kinda hard to describe, it's almost as if you have to believe she's going to spin in the certain direction.:)

Seriously, keep trying, you'll get it eventually. It sorta just "clicks", and then you'll be able to do it at will.

There is no spoon, etc.


Oh and what do you mean by the "fuzzy dots" illusions? Not sure which ones you mean.

breadmonkey

You just get a page that doesn't appear to have any image on it, just loads of tiny blotches of different colour. Then you're supposed to bring it close to your face and move it slowly away and an image like a car or something forms.

hoolio

Oh do you mean like the magic eye illusions, say like this:


They're called sterograms wiki
(or google images for loads more examples, but the roses one is relatively easy to get working.)

I never used the "holding it close to your eye" method. I just force my eyes out of focus, i'm not sure can everyone do it, but i just unfocus so that i see two images instead of one. Then i try to control the level of unfocus to make one rose fall ontop of another to the left or right of it (not the one it originated from), and then you hold it there, and if falls into a fake focus, and you see the pop out image.

EDIT: here what i mean, try to make the images line up like this:

Blowfish

hoolio wrote: »

Lol, its kinda hard to describe, it's almost as if you have to believe she's going to spin in the certain direction.:)

That's exactly what I do too, although I focus on the whole image rather than a part of her body. I find it very easy to do, and can make her spin back and forth like a yo-yo.

I'm another that has never seen the second image in a sterogram. It's most likely to do with the fact that the eyesight in one of my eyes is weaker than the other one, so I tend to rely on the stronger eye more. It also has the odd effect that I can move my eyeballs independantly though

hoolio

Blowfish wrote:

I'm another that has never seen the second image in a sterogram. It's most likely to do with the fact that the eyesight in one of my eyes is weaker than the other one, so I tend to rely on the stronger eye more.

yeah. i have absolutely shocking eyesight, and find it infinitely harder to see the embedded image without my glasses, even up close. the embedded image is a heart in that one btw, old romatic that i am.

Blowfish wrote:

I can move my eyeballs independantly

Witch!

Valmont

I'm covering illusions and the likes at the moment in my Cognitive class but this one is bizarre. It's quite amazing actually

hotspur

Took me forever to make her go anti-clockwise, it worked when I squinted and concentrated on looking at her shadow at the bottom for some reason.

Valmont

I found a different way to change the direction without pausing it. Close your eyes and imagine her spinning in the opposite direction as clear as you can. Works every time for me:D

tech77

hotspur wrote: »

Took me forever to make her go anti-clockwise, it worked when I squinted and concentrated on looking at her shadow at the bottom for some reason.

That's because if you examine the movements of the shadow closely the only way she can truly be turning is anti-clockwise.

The movement of the shadow does not strictly make sense if she was to be moving clockwise.

Basically no matter where light may be coming from the shadowing only makes sense if she goes anti-clockwise.
Obviously if you remove the shadowing you can legitimately see her going either way.

Valmont

The shadows can be interpreted either way, the shadows make sense to me whatever way she's turning. Obviously they're different for each rotation but that doesn't mean one is necessarily wrong. How do you know where the light is?

tech77

Valmont wrote: »

The shadows can be interpreted either way, the shadows make sense to me whatever way she's turning. Obviously they're different for each rotation but that doesn't mean one is necessarily wrong. How do you know where the light is?

No that's what i'm saying.
The light can be from anywhere, it doesn't matter.

What matters is:

1. The shadow moves in and out of picture.

2. Shadow into picture means it is distant and shadow out of picture means it is nearer to us.

3. So when the shadow is in-picture (distant) her raised leg must also be distant (pointing away from us). Therefore her raised leg must be her left and she is turning anticlockwise.

Likewise when the shadow is out of picture (near us) her raised leg is near (pointing towards us) and again must be her left turning anticlockwise.

I think as someone else said the test has something to do with whether you spot this and therefore more a test of how you process stuff visually more than anything else.

Blowfish

tech77 wrote: »

No that's what i'm saying.
The light can be from anywhere, it doesn't matter.

What matters is:

1. The shadow moves in and out of picture.

2. Shadow into picture means it is distant and shadow out of picture means it is nearer to us.

3. So when the shadow is in-picture (distant) her raised leg must also be distant (pointing away from us). Therefore her raised leg must be her left and she is turning anticlockwise.

Likewise when the shadow is out of picture (near us) her raised leg is near (pointing towards us) and again must be her left turning anticlockwise.

I think as someone else said the test has something to do with whether you spot this and therefore more a test of how you process stuff visually more than anything else.

Yes, but the point being when you see it being 'in' the picture, it can also be seen as being 'out' of the picture, and vice versa.

tech77

Blowfish wrote: »

Yes, but the point being when you see it being 'in' the picture, it can also be seen as being 'out' of the picture, and vice versa.

Don't understand what you mean by this.
Could you explain.

I'm talking about the shadow beneath her feet.
What i'm saying is this:

If shadow of RAISED leg is IN-PICTURE then
shadow must be distant.

Distant shadow is obviously the shadow of a raised leg pointing AWAY from us.

And the only leg that is pointing away from us when shadow is distant is the LEFT leg.

A right raised leg would obviously be perceived as pointing toward us which would be incongruous with the shadow at that time.

Therefore she moves anticlockwise with left leg raised.

Of course if you take out the shadow you can truly see her turn either way.

Valmont

tech77 wrote:

Of course if you take out the shadow you can truly see her turn either way.

No, because I can see her turn both ways while focusing mainly on her feet and the shadows.

tech77

Valmont wrote: »

No, because I can see her turn both ways while focusing mainly on her feet and the shadows.

Right.
But are you sure that seeing her going clockwise is not just FALSELY perceived.

In other words even with the incongruous shadowing i'm sure you could still falsely perceive it go either way.

Whether she TRULY goes anticlockwise AND clockwise is another issue.

Can I ask, apart from all that, do you take the point about the shadowing of the raised foot only working for going anticlockwise?

Valmont

tech77 wrote: »

1. The shadow moves in and out of picture.

2. Shadow into picture means it is distant and shadow out of picture means it is nearer to us.

This is the bit I don't understand.

I thought that the whole illusion is ambiguous and that's why it's an illusion and there is no right way to see it.

tech77

This is the bit I don't understand.

Which bit?
The first bit "The shadow (of the raised leg) moves in and out of picture" is self-evident from the picture.
So i presume you're talking about the second bit "Shadow (of the raised leg) into picture means it is distant and shadow (of the raised leg) out of picture means it is nearer to us".

Well to me the second bit seems fairly obvious as well.
I would have thought it was pretty much axiomatic that anything that was in-picture was more distant from the observer than anything that had dropped out of picture (in the way the shadow of the raised leg does for half its cycle).

If you could tell me why you think this shadow argument is invalid that would be great as i've no 100% proof myself (i just can't see why it would be invalid TBH)

I thought that the whole illusion is ambiguous and that's why it's an illusion and there is no right way to see it.

Yeah as i said she can be perceived going 2 ways, anticlockwise and clockwise. That's what makes it an illusion-the ambiguous perception.

However in reality given the movement of the shadows beneath her feet, i maintain she is only TRULY moving anticlockwise and therefore it can only be TRULY perceived anticlockwise and FALSELY perceived clockwise.

So: one reality leading to 2 perceptions (one false, one true).

I'm basing my assertion on the shadow argument above which as i say, to me seems sound. I'm pretty sure the shadow argument is correct but as i say i'm no expert and would love to hear if and why others think its not.

Victor

Realise that you are not looking at the dancer, but at a shadow / silhouette, not a 3D object but its projection on a plane - you never know if the raised leg is in front or behind. Our minds are just trying to interpret what they see and coming to a convenient conclusion.

Also the bit under her is a reflection, not a shadow - the light is below her.

Of course, while the dancer perceives herself to be spinning clockwise or anti-clockwise, a second party must be looking from above or below to decide (If she was spinning clocklike, her head would be rotating from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock, etc.).