Talk:Cornsweet illusion

Untitled

Remark about this line:

"In the image at right, the entire region to the right of the "edge" in the middle looks slightly lighter than the area to the left of the edge, but in fact the brightness of both areas is exactly the same, ***as can be seen by blacking out the region containing the edge.***"

One cannot verify both sides to have the same brightness by blacking out the edge. In the case the difference between the brightness of both side is small, and one occludes the transition, one perceives a single brightess only for the entire area. The difference only becomes apparent when one sees the edge...

josvanr@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.249.195 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snipping what seems to be original research

I'm removing this, because the style of presentation and the absence of source citations suggests that it is original research. If I'm wrong about this, my apologies, but please provide source citations showing that the material has been previously published, per the verifiability policy.

Wikipedia is not an outlet for the publication of original research; see WP:OR.

If this explanation of the Cornsweet effect is in fact well-known and published, then it can (and should) be included in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed

Headline text

An Empirical Explanation: Craik-O'Brien-Cornsweet Effect

Italic textThe common denominator of the Cornsweet stimulus and the simultaneous brightness contrast stimulus is simply what the equiluminant 'targets' in the two luminance profiles have typically turned out to be.

According to this wholly empirical way of understanding the relationship between luminance and brightness, whenever a given stimulus is consistent with the experience of equiluminant targets signifying differently reflective objects, the brightness of the returns should appear different. If this idea is correct, then the same perceptual effect elicited by the stimulus profile in DEMONSTRATIONS #02-05 should be generated by any stimulus in which regions would have typically would have turned out to be differently reflective objects in different amounts of light. We therefore sought to test this prediction by examining other sorts of brightness 'illusions'.

--Robert 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Robert G. Reynolds Jr. 3/28/06[reply]

Not seeing it

I'm seeing it as a three dimensional ridge sticking out of an otherwise uniform wall, illuminated from one side (bright on one side of the ridge, darker on the other).

Is it documented in what percentage of the population is susceptible? 192.139.122.42 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original File:Cornsweet illusion.svg version was a very mild version of the effect. I've replaced it with a different image that uses shades of grey more closely matching those given at https://www.jneurosci.org/content/19/19/8542. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better exemplified by

Would this effect be better exemplified by the (e) image in http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=a/9TzeCnMGhUDKw5aZ77Tg4fFGhe5fVL (the picture is from the referenced work)? I am also not seeing the effect too much on the picture that is currently used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.212.106 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An observation

I know this is probably not the place for this, but i just noticed that the illusion (at least for me) seems much less prevalent when wearing my polaroid sunglasses, in fact, the illusion noticably disappears a second or two after putting them on while having looked at the image before (and while) donning them. I've yet to try it on "natural" media (i.e. paper), so i can't say if it's just some type of interaction between the screen and the glasses or not. It could also be just in my head though, sort of like a "double" or "secondary" illusion.

It seemed like an interesting effect, so i felt i'd put it out there, just for the hell of it. Feel free to delete and/or if this is nothing new / you know of a more appropriate forum (as in "place for social interaction", i of course don't think Talk-pages are a forum...though it might not seem like it), i'd be happy to be pointed in that direction. Swedra (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]