|This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
During the 1970s undergraduates in the Psychology Department of City University, London, were provided with assignments to measure their Introversion-Extroversion orientations by the time it took for them to switch between the Front and Back perceptions of the Necker Cube.
The Necker cube is an ambiguous line drawing.
The effect is interesting because each part of the picture is ambiguous by itself, yet the human visual system picks an interpretation of each part that makes the whole consistent. The Necker cube is sometimes used to test computer models of the human visual system to see whether they can arrive at consistent interpretations of the image the same way humans do.
Humans do not usually see an inconsistent interpretation of the cube. A cube whose edges cross in an inconsistent way is an example of an impossible object, specifically an impossible cube (compare Penrose triangle).
With the cube on the left, most people see the lower-left face as being in front most of the time. This is possibly because people view objects from above, with the top side visible, far more often than from below, with the bottom visible, so the brain "prefers" the interpretation that the cube is viewed from above . Another reason behind this may be due to the brain's natural preference of viewing things from left to right, therefore seeing the leftmost square as being in front.
There is evidence that by focusing on different parts of the figure one can force a more stable perception of the cube. The intersection of the two faces that are parallel to the observer forms a rectangle, and the lines that converge on the square form a "y-junction" at the two diagonally opposite sides. If an observer focuses on the upper "y-junction" the lower left face will appear to be in front. The upper right face will appear to be in front if the eyes focus on the lower junction. Blinking while being on the second perception will probably cause you to switch to the first one.
|It is possible to cause the switch to occur by focusing on different parts of the cube. If one sees the first interpretation on the right it is possible to cause a switch to the second by focusing on the base of the cube until the switch occurs to the second interpretation. Similarly, if one is viewing the second interpretation, focusing on the left side of the cube may cause a switch to the first.|
The Necker cube has shed light on the human visual system. The phenomenon has served as evidence of the human brain being a neural network with two distinct equally possible interchangeable stable states. Sidney Bradford, blind from the age of ten months but regaining his sight following an operation at age 52, did not perceive the ambiguity that normal-sighted observers do, but rather perceived only a flat image.
The orientation of the Necker cube can also be altered by shifting the observer's point of view. When seen from apparent above, one face tends to be seen closer; and in contrast, when seen from a subjective viewpoint that is below, a different face comes to the fore.
References in popular culture
The Necker cube is discussed to such extent in Robert J. Sawyer's 1998 science fiction novel Factoring Humanity that "Necker" becomes a verb, meaning to impel one's brain to switch from one perspective or perception to another.
The necker cube is used to illustrate how vampires in the science fiction novels Blindsight and Echopraxia have superior pattern recognition skills. One of the pieces of evidence is that vampires can see both interpretations of the Necker Cube simultaneously which sets them apart from baseline humanity
- Necker, L.A. (1832). "Observations on some remarkable optical phaenomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phaenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid". London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 1 (5): 329–337. doi:10.1080/14786443208647909.
- Troje, McAdam 2010.
- Ward, Brian 2015, p. 931.
- Khan, Aarlenne; J. Douglas Crawford (June 2001). "Ocular dominance reverses as a function of horizontal gaze angle". Vision Research. 21 (14): 1743–8. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(01)00079-7. PMID 11369037. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
- Einhäuser, W.; Martin, K.A.C.; König, P. (2004). "Are switches in perception of the Necker cube related to eye position?". European Journal of Neuroscience. 20 (10): 2811–2818. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03722.x. PMID 15548224.
- Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. W.H. Freeman. Reprint: The MIT Press. ISBN 0-7167-1284-9.
- Gregory, R. (August 2004). "The Blind Leading the Sighted: An Eye-Opening Experience of the Wonders of Perception" (PDF). Nature. 430 (7002): 836. doi:10.1038/430836a. PMID 15318199.
- Martelli M L, Kubovy M, Claessens P, 1998, "Instability of the Necker cube: influence of orientation and configuration" Perception 27 ECVP Abstract Supplement
- Sawyer, Robert J. (1998). Factoring Humanity. New York: Tor. pp. 233, 256, 299, et al.
- Watts, Peter (2006). Blindsight. Tor. pp. 42, 284.
- Ward, Emily J.; Scholl, Brian J. (2015). "Stochastic or Systematic? Seemingly Random Perceptual Switching in Bistable Events Triggered by Transient Unconscious Cues" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 41 (4): 929–939. doi:10.1037/a0038709.
- Troje, Nikolaus F.; McAdam, Matthew (2010). "Stochastic or Systematic? Seemingly Random Perceptual Switching in Bistable Events Triggered by Transient Unconscious Cues". i-Perception. 1 (1(3)): 143–148. doi:10.1068/i0408. PMC . PMID 23145219.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Necker cubes.|