Talk:Multistable perception

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 May 2020 and 6 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amb1315.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statement

I have removed the following sentence: "In the 1980s, multistable visual patterns caught the attention of philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists". This statement both contradicts other comments made in the article and is, to be frank, of little merit. Multistable perception has interested philosophers, psychologists, artists and many others throughout history, and is far from confined to the 1980s. The Penrose's and Escher were active in the 1950s and '60s. Louis Albert Necker was conducting research in the 1820s and '30s, I guess you can all see where I am going with this... Rje 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the third of the three illusions

The third of the three illusions isn't doing anything for me. Doesn't seem to be multistable at all. In fact I can't even tell what the point is supposed to be. It just looks two-dimensional. Remove it?

I get an effect where either the arrowheads are on a plane and the lines converge in the distance, or the cross is in the foreground and the "wings" of the arrowheads point away. — Gwalla | Talk 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third example should be removed, the line don't seem to converge in the distance because they don't reduce in thickness, it really is just two dimensional.

I too think the third example is less good than the others, but I suspect the intended ambiguity is as to which double arrow is in front and which one behind. At least, I am able to produce such a switch in perception.--Niels Ø (noe) 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as perfectly two-dimensional, with nothing ambiguous about it. --Itub (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my post above, I am also able to produce a figure/ground switch - is it to black double arrows on white ground, or is it four white arrows on black ground? However, I still think it is much poorer than the other two; I wouldn't miss it.--Noe (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in, in this admittedly old thread, as someone else who has no idea what the instability in the third example is, and I think it should either be removed or their should be some kind of explanation of what to look for. Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see it finally. It is apparently either the four black arrows pointing out, or four white arrows pointing in, on a black background. Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the intended perception effect is the two kind (black/white) of arrows, the example is probably fitting (the other two probably belong to a narrower subtype of multistable images), but the link to the Müller-Lyer illusion seems misleading and surely not helping. This illusion is mentioned in the file description (which is used quite often) so this may require some discussion elsewhere. Ambiguous image, which links here, has some clearer but less geometric examples. Also note that this is a single image, so changing/removing the last example is less trivial than it seems.Personuser (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence too technical

The sentence "The fascination of multistable perception probably comes from the active nature of endogenous perceptual changes or from the dissociation of dynamic perception from constant sensory stimulation." is really complicated. I would change it myself, but I'm not quite sure what it even says. Is there a way to simplify this statement in more lay terms, or at least clarify it so a lay person could get the gist of it?Davepetr (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worst lead sentence I've ever seen.

"Multistable perceptual phenomena are a form of perceptual phenomena in which there are unpredictable sequences of spontaneous subjective changes."

In a word: WHAT?! Never mind the poor grammar (phenomena is plural, therefore is not "a form" -- "are a form"?! Seriously?!), aside from that the sentence makes utterly no sense at all. Serious rewording is needed. --71.235.188.9 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multistable perception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Gestalt shift" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gestalt shift and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 24#Gestalt shift until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]