November 1994 PMID 7991357

Adaptation effects and reversible figures: a comment on Horlitz and O'Leary.

G M Long, T C Toppino

Download social card

Mentions

5
Peak: 2 in Dec 2020
across 2 sources since Dec 2020

Extended reach

19,629,817
potential audience

Total likes

380,587

Video views

19,629,818

Mentions per month

Dec 2020 – Jul 2022

Where it's discussed

  • YouTube3 videos
  • Bluesky2 posts

AI synopsis

What people are saying

This collection of social discussions demonstrates mild interest with mentions of fascinating illusions like the window illusion, highlighted by references to explanatory content such as @veritasium's video. The tone ranges from curiosity to mild frustration, with minimal detailed analysis or strong opinions, indicating a broad but superficial engagement with the research's implications.

AgreementNeither agree nor disagree

The comments show minimal explicit agreement or disagreement with the publication, mostly focusing on general reactions rather than in-depth analysis.

InterestModerate interest

The posts indicate a moderate level of curiosity, especially with one referencing an explanation by @veritasium about the illusion, showing some engagement with the topic.

EngagementLow engagement

The replies are brief and surface-level, with one describing the illusion as frustrating and another simply noting 'weird stuff,' which suggests low detailed engagement.

ImpactNeutral impact

The messages don't convey a sense of the publication causing a significant shift in understanding or practice, reflecting a neutral perceived impact.

Abstract in brief

  • Horlitz and OLeary's research emphasizes the influence of top-down processes like attention and familiarity on how people perceive reversible figures, suggesting that these perceptual changes involve more than just passive neural mechanisms.
  • They argue that their findings challenge the idea that neural adaptation alone explains these reversals, instead proposing an information-access approach, although the current commentary warns that procedural differences, like adaptation duration, could also explain the results.
  • The commentary highlights that Horlitz and OLeary's methods might not have been conducive to producing significant neural adaptation effects and suggests that both bottom-up (neural) and top-down (cognitive) factors jointly influence how reversible figures are perceived.

Top posts

Most liked on X and Bluesky
G. Smith
@therealgsmith.com · Bluesky

Weird stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc

Dec 31, 2020 View post →
Pierre Kerner
@ssaft.com · Bluesky

Une explication signée @veritasium de l'Illusion de la fenêtre d'Adelbert Ames, une des illusions les plus frustrantes qui soient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc

Jan 5, 2021 View post →

All mentions

Pierre Kerner
@ssaft.com · Bluesky

Une explication signée @veritasium de l'Illusion de la fenêtre d'Adelbert Ames, une des illusions les plus frustrantes qui soient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc

Jan 5, 2021 View post →
G. Smith
@therealgsmith.com · Bluesky

Weird stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc

Dec 31, 2020 View post →