Something awesome about the brain.

**blade5x** · 02-27-2008 12:05 AM

So I was watching TV, and a commercial came on about pushing the human limits (a documentary that's going to come on Discovery soon in the next week). It interested me so I checked out the website, and then I ran into this...

"How does the brain create an uninterrupted view of the world?

If you've ever used a camcorder, you've probably noticed that the picture can be pretty shaky as you move from one image to the next. But for most of us, our eyes -- the video cameras of our brain, if you will -- suffer no unstable transition as they move quickly over a scene.
Scientists have understood this phenomenon for decades. To achieve a stable view despite quick eye movements, the eyes do an amazing thing: They take before and after shots of every focused image and compare them in order to confirm stability. In essence, before your eyes actually sense an object, your brain takes its own picture of it for comparison purposes. It knows where your eyes are going to move next, and it forms an image of the object that precedes our conscious, visual perception of it and lays the framework for a smooth visual transition.

So the process is in the books. But scientists have spent at least 50 years trying to find out how the brain manages this feat."

Source

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/human-bo...n-body-04.html

Unbelievable. I'm trying to think about how this is even possible to a place you have never gone in your life before... when you set your eyes on something for the first time in your life.

**Mes Tarrant** · 02-27-2008 12:08 AM

I thought cameras were shaky cuz people's hands are shaky...

**Ynot** · 02-27-2008 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I thought cameras were shaky cuz people's hands are shaky...

yeah,
my head's shaky

I need to lay off the caffeine

**Sornaensis** · 02-27-2008 12:11 AM

This is basically dyslexia in a nutshell.

**blade5x** · 02-27-2008 12:13 AM

I'm pretty sure they were talking about camera with unsteady frame rate. Most I see I don't notice the shakiness they speak of but once in a while you might catch something. I'm not really sure why they included that, as it doesn't really seem like the best comparison. Maybe someone here knows more about cameras.

**blade5x** · 02-27-2008 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

This is basically dyslexia in a nutshell.

Explain? Because I'm not exactly seeing the relationship here, though I don't know much about dyslexia.

**Ynot** · 02-27-2008 12:17 AM

I can see what it's saying, though

- you see something out the corner of your eye
- your brain takes the image, processes it, and works out what it would look like if you moved your eyes to look at it head on
- you move your eyes and look at it head on

the difference between blurry, unfocused, off-centre image straight to focused, centred is a big change

blurry, unfocused, off-centre image to processed image to actual focused image is more fluid

**Mes Tarrant** · 02-27-2008 12:17 AM

^ Yep I don't know much about it either...

Well anyway, if that's true about the brain, then that's pretty damn cool.

I wonder how they went about proving that though.

Edit: Ynot, ooh the "corner of your eye" bit makes a lot of sense. I guess this wouldn't work as well for someone with bad peripheral vision. Hmm, it's making sense now.

**Sornaensis** · 02-27-2008 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by blade5x

Explain? Because I'm not exactly seeing the relationship here, though I don't know much about dyslexia.

Your brain misreads the word because of what you stated above: Your brain fooled your eyes who folled your brain.

**Ynot** · 02-27-2008 12:20 AM

evolutionary thing, I'd bet

the faster, and more accurately you can process your peripheral vision, the more chance you have of catching your lunch, and avoiding being caught by others

**blade5x** · 02-27-2008 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ynot

I can see what it's saying, though

- you see something out the corner of your eye
- your brain takes the image, processes it, and works out what it would look like if you moved your eyes to look at it head on
- you move your eyes and look at it head on

the difference between blurry, unfocused, off-centre image straight to focused, centred is a big change

blurry, unfocused, off-centre image to processed image to actual focused image is more fluid

If it was that simple I'm sure scientists wouldn't have taken 50 years (actually more since they don't know how exactly this works), but it is a good question as to how they even discovered this in the first place.

**Sornaensis** · 02-27-2008 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by blade5x

If it was that simple I'm sure scientists wouldn't have taken 50 years (actually more since they don't know how exactly this works), but it is a good question as to how they even discovered this in the first place.

I find that the simplest explanations of scientific studies are often the best.

Originally Posted by Ynot

evolutionary thing, I'd bet

the faster, and more accurately you can process your peripheral vision, the more chance you have of catching your lunch, and avoiding being caught by others

Makes sense.

**Mes Tarrant** · 02-27-2008 12:28 AM

Then again, don't be too quick to explain everything away using evolution (although I agree it makes total sense in this case). For instance, people attempt to explain men's preference for multiple partners and women's preference for single partners using evolution.. which is quite empty, of course, given there's no scientific data to support this. BUT I DIGRESS!

**Goldney** · 02-27-2008 12:33 AM

I thought it had something to do with sicates(sp) where you go blind between moving your eyes and your brain supplies the picture.

They did with tests with people reading a computer moniter, a camera would "see" when their eyes moved and change the text when the person was blinded.

**Sornaensis** · 02-27-2008 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Then again, don't be too quick to explain everything away using evolution (although I agree it makes total sense in this case). For instance, people attempt to explain men's preference for multiple partners and women's preference for single partners using evolution.. which is quite empty, of course, given there's no scientific data to support this. BUT I DIGRESS!

Humans males naturally want as many partners as possible.

**Mes Tarrant** · 02-27-2008 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Humans males naturally want as many partners as possible.

There's no proven difference between how many partners males want versus how many females want.

**Sornaensis** · 02-27-2008 12:38 AM

Ask any guy

**Mes Tarrant** · 02-27-2008 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Ask any guy

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I'm talking about guys older than 15.

(Wait wait now. My point is there's no difference in these wants between males and females. I'm not saying guys don't want multiple partners. I'm just saying there's no difference between the two sexes in this case.)

**Sornaensis** · 02-27-2008 12:43 AM

(Oh well then whoever said that is stupid)

**bigfoot** · 02-27-2008 04:27 PM

I've heard about this before. It's really amazing. The complexity of our minds and bodies is astounding and somehow terrifying.

**Kromoh** · 03-04-2008 02:33 AM

Omg that is so cool! It's really amazing! haha now I'll stop complaining about the cameramen xD

**b12** · 03-04-2008 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Humans males naturally want as many partners as possible.

Actually it's proven that biologically women are very promiscuous and want as many partners as possible.

But social norms dictate that females should not be promiscuous and should only want one or few partners.

**Xaqaria** · 03-04-2008 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by b12

Actually it's proven that biologically women are very promiscuous and want as many partners as possible.

But social norms dictate that females should not be promiscuous and should only want one or few partners.

Proven by whom?

**b12** · 03-04-2008 08:46 AM

Well, not "proven," but "supported." Nothing is really scientifically "proven."

I'll find the article again, i've gotta search through the database, right now i'm off to bed.

**Xaqaria** · 03-04-2008 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by b12

Well, not "proven," but "supported." Nothing is really scientifically "proven."

I'll find the article again, i've gotta search through the database, right now i'm off to bed.

Lots of things are scientifically proven.

Thread: Something awesome about the brain.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Something awesome about the brain.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions