Talk:Visual perception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:08, 24 September 2003 (UTC).

Can be psychologically studied[edit]

Visual Perception falls under the auspices of psychological study so long as it is studied from a psychological perspective. Clearly it can be studied from many points of view, and I know so many psychology professors who work on this multidisciplinary subject that to not list it would almost seem laughable to me. I thought the article conveyed pretty well that it can be (and IS!) psychologically studied. --ABQCat 09:15, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I removed the psychology category, because its redundant. Visual perception is a part of psychology through the 'perception' subcategory.

"An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software." -- Wikipedia:Categorization

--Johnkarp 09:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then remove it from the "perception" category or something. It's clearest and easiest to find by browsing through a list of psychology category items. Common sense should also always prevail, despire wikipedia guidelines. --ABQCat 11:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree we should go along with common sense. But I'd be interested in hearing exactly why you believe visual perception should be a top-level subject under psychology, and referring to 'common sense' doesn't communicate anything.
What I'm trying to do is have a simple, clear Psychology category system, where related subjects are clustered. If people are looking for visual perception, they're going to type it in directly as 'visual perception' or 'perception' and get there directly without using categories. If they're browsing, they want related subjects. Now psychology is a really big field, so having everything related to psychology in one gigantic pile I don't think is helpful. For example, finding visual perception among 'illusions' and 'gestalt' is helpful, whereas finding it among 'vicarious conditioning' and 'vulnerability theory of schizophrenia' is not.
My conception of how the psychology should work category-wise is have sub-categories for the schools (behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.) and divisions (social, cognitive, personality, perception, etc). Most individual subjects would fall under at least one of these groups, and not need to clog up the parent psychology category. The subjects directly listed in psychology would be fundamental issues in psychology, such as research techniques.
I think this conception agrees with the conventions here on Wikipedia. For example, Napoleon is listed under Category:French_heads_of_state, but not directly under Category:French_politicians, even though Napoleon is a very notable French politician. If you want to break the conventions of Wikipedia, you should have a good reason you can clearly explain.
--Johnkarp 20:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't say that I'd see any problem with such a categorization scheme. I do think that perhaps there should be a recursive link to navigate upwards within the nested category schemes. Perhaps something along the lines of [[Category:Perception]], a subtopic of [[|Psychology]] or some such. Something analogous to directory browsing with a fully qualified path statement, if you get my meaning? Not sure how well this could be implemented with the current method of listing categories at the end of the page, but I think it would be useful for those who stumble instead across "Visual Perception" and are interested in topics related to it. It has relationships to areas of psychology which are just as valid as relationships to other perceptual modalities. --ABQCat 21:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Infobox for psychology looks good to me. If there are any improvements other folks want to make to it, that'd be fine, but I think it's clear, succinct, and makes obvious how visual perception fits into psychological studies. --ABQCat 07:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Illustrations ![edit]

Isn't it paradoxical that an article on visual perception has no illustration whatsoever ? Pictures would really help explain unconscious inference, Gestalt laws, etc. If anyone feels like sketching up a few doodles, here's a great opportunity. Sbarthelme 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There's currently a photograph of a pair of eyes on the right-hand side of the article overlapping and obstructing the text of the article itself. I tried several times to change the alignment of the image, but I couldn't figure out how to prevent the overlapping effect. Would any of you wiki-savvy users be willing to correct this glitch?.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC).

At the current moment, I see nothing wrong. If someone can duplicate this error, reply here with your browser+version.--M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, why include illustrations if they add nothing to the article? I'm particularly talking about the picture of 'human eyes', which seems completely pointless. (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also the illustration "The visual dorsal stream (green) and ventral stream (purple) are shown. Much of the human cerebral cortex is involved in vision." should be moved to another place. I could upload an illustration of the human eye by Leonardo DaVinci. --Hans-Werner34 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A Primer on Probabilistic Approaches to Visual Perception[edit]

I removed that paragraph because it was copied from Unless that piece of text is copyleft we can't use for this article. Also sounds a bit like self-prom.

I linked to it in the "unconscious inference" paragraph. Sbarthelme 17:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again. Medtopic 06:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article[edit]

Unsourced and addresses the reader:

Up to 90% of information obtained by humans is from their vision. This is why people with eye problems struggle more than other conditions of the other senses because seeing is so common that people take it for granted but the simple tasks of walking down the street or taking a bath seem much harder when you think about that you can't see what you're doing.

-- Ec5618 07:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Underwater vision appears to be an essay or such. I believe the article would be better suited being merged into this article (Visual perception). --Midnightcomm 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They should stay separate - the merge is not required as the topics are disparate. Visual perception is about photochemistry, neurological and psychological aspects of vision in humans. Underwater vision is a physical concept of visual distortions expected for aquatic life and divers - it is of sufficient scientific interest to deserve its spot on Wikipedia. EyeMD T|C 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"See also" section[edit]

Anyone else think the "See also" section is getting out of hand? -AED 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it seems that most of those topics currently in the "See also" section would be more appropriately linked through content in the article. Privong 03:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Human Visual System[edit]

The 'visual system' section repeats information found easily elsewhere - if people want detail they can follow the links. I don't think that this should be the focus of this article. Famousdog 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Computer vision category[edit]

I removed this article from the computer vision category. VP is already listed under the vision category which is linked to the CV category. --KYN 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Wasn't there some sort of study where a group were asked to wear special glasses that flipped their vision upside down and after a while their brain caused the image in their head to flip back to normal perception and then when they took the glasses off the image was upside down again until their brain adjusted again? That was a long sentence, but if that study was real I think it is very pertinent to this subject and should be addition to being extremely interesting. Chitchin13 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The initial study was published in 1896: G.M. Stratton, Some preliminary experiments on vision without inversion of the retinal image. Psychol. Rev. 3 (1896), pp. 611–617. A more recent paper on the topic is here: [1] Famousdog (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Noise in vision[edit]

I am trying to find information about noise in human vision (grainy "pixels", commonly seen in CCD and CMOS imaging sensors when operated with high gain). I have noticed noise in my vision when in low light conditions and was wondering if there is any scientific documentation of this. Ratsbew (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is universal -- see the Closed-eye hallucination article. Not much scientific literature as far as I know because there is no way to measure it except to ask people what they are experiencing. Very likely it's just a manifestation of neural background activity in the visual cortex. looie496 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Astronauts have reported flashes due to cosmic rays, scintillation (physics) effects.Shjacks45 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Care to provide a citation for that claim? Famousdog (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mesopic vision[edit]

Hoping someone knowledgable will look at this article, as it needs help. See its 'dubious' tag and its Talk page. Thanks. - Hordaland (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I Googled around a bit and I think I've managed to fix it -- although the article is still just a stub. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

eye only detects motion[edit]

The human eye only detects motion, like the frog eye. But the frog eye does not move. Our eyes do not see like a video camera, they only see motion: but constantly move to different focal points in a scene to create that motion. If you stare at a scene "without moving" your eyes it will "disappear". This is more pronounced when given medication to paralyze the eye muscles during medical procedures. Vision improves by moving your head to scan the scene. Shjacks45 (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no idea what the point of your comment is in relation to the article as it currently stands, but it contains some inaccuracies that feel I should counter: Yes, frog eyes do not move, nor can frogs "see" stationary objects, however human eyes do not "only detect motion". Yes, the visual image fades after a few seconds if the image is stabilised (by surgery, medication or other means), but the human eye/visual system easily detects stationary contrast (differences in luminance or colour) in addition to motion. In fact, motion is arguabley only perceived at a higher level of processing after stationary contrast is detected. Yes, human eyes are not video cameras, but it's an oversimplification of the true process of vision to say that "they only see motion". Finally, when you say "vision improves by moving your head to scan the scene" could you define how we are measuring "improvement", whether eye movements have the same effect as head movements and what type of head/eye movements count as "scanning"? Otherwise that statement is an unsupported platitude. Famousdog (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Misusing of refs[edit]

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 5 edits by Jagged 85 in June/July 2007 and 2 more edits in July 2008. Tobby72 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know. I had an interesting discussion at the time. He was pushing the Khaleefa article on several articles as "evidence" that Ibn Al-Haytham founded both psychophysics and experimental psychology. I provided a reference that suggests that is not the case. Famousdog (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Altered first paragraph.[edit]

The change I made and why I think it is wholly justifyable.

"Visual perception is the ability to interpret information and surroundings of visible light reaching the eye." This is the original sentence, but it does not account for non-light forms such as silhouetting or shadows.

"Visual perception is the ability to interpret information and surroundings from the effects of visible light reaching the eye." This amendment should account for the forms created due to the juxtaposition of light and lack of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Empiristic theory of perception" reference[edit]

My field is empirical theories of perception. I checked out this guy's work and it seems to be highly non-mainstream -- he assumes that ESP (extra-sensory perception, e.g. telepathy) is an established fact that most science "ignores." I'm not sure this belongs as a reference in a scientific article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argumentum ornithologicum (talkcontribs) 05:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems it was added in 2005, and no one ever actually looked at it. The (not logged in) user’s contributions were all made on 13 March 2005, and were all links to that site. I removed some of the other links he'd left (most had disappeared in the intervening 5 years), and left the one on gestalt psychology where it actually seems potentially relevant. Feel free to remove it from there too if you feel it's too far out of mainstream. Wikipedia's standard for external links doesn't necessarily have to be as high as its standard for sources, but we don't want to send people towards misleading (etc.) resources, either. –jacobolus (t) 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Limit of perceptibility[edit]

My Wiley Nuclear physics textbook says that a blackened surface illuminated by a sodium flame is "just visible against a completely black background" when the radiation intensity is equal to approximately 2 million quanta per centimeter squared per second. What does that say about the perceptibility of the eye with relation to its ability to react to photon illumination levels?WFPM (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Could we estimate from this as to how many quanta/second or other time interval is required to achieve a sensory response in the human eye?WFPM (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably get a better estimate from psychophysical experiments on vision than from a hand-wave of a sentence in a nuclear physics book. –jacobolus (t) 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The implication of the physics book is that space is practically full of radiant photons, and that the human eye has an unspecified sensitivity thereto, and I'm trying to understand its quantitative sensitivity with relation to the "bundled energy" content of the photon. I'm under the impression that it would take a considerable number of accumulated photons for the eye to be able to sense such an event, and I wonder what the approximate number could be.WFPM (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC) See Night vision.WFPM (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
A google scholar search turns up plenty of papers on this subject, Maybe you can find a decent answer there? –jacobolus (t) 22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
What I'm really trying to understand, is Feynman's argument (In QED), that 2 photons can cancel each other out if they go through holes in an opaque surface and are separated a proper distance apart. That sounds like negative energy accounting to me, and I don't believe in negative energy.WFPM (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Since this question isn't really related to improving the current article, it would be better suited for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Canceling photons are a completely different sort of question than the threshold of visual perception. I'm not really sure how to help you, since I'm not completely sure what your question is. As Looie says, this talk page isn't really the best place for it though. –jacobolus (t) 01:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've got to admit that I'm much more interested in the (mechanics?) of visual perception than I am in to the related mental processes of seeing and understanding, which is evidently what you're concerned with. Because I'm trying to find out how nature does it, rather than what we think about it. And I agree with Hemholtz and Feynman, in that we have dug up a lot of details about what seems to be a physical energy distribution process, and are trying to analyze it from the bottom up, rather than looking at it from the atom function perspective and trying to understand it from the top down.WFPM (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you mean. There is plenty written about the low-level operation of rods and cones. That low-level input goes through layers and layers of processing before even being transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain, whereupon it goes through still more complex processing, most of which we don't really understand. I myself am pretty fascinated by every stage of this process. I can try to find textbooks or papers to recommend if you have some specific area of interest. –jacobolus (t) 01:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I like to start at the emission end of the process, which is involved with the radiation properties of usually the electron, and which results in the emission of a "photon", which we think is a "bundle" of radiation energy with peculiar properties. It's evidently equipped with interacting electromagnetic properties that contains a "one- step" work function capability, which means that it either is able to do the work in one step or not, and that 2 half-steps wont work. But then, after it does the work, it's still a photon that is still capable of doing an additional amount of one-step work. However, if its emission process involves motion, it will result in a change in the time based intensity of the work function, as if its function capability is not instantaneous, but stretched out over a reception time interval. Then at the delivery end of its saga of existence, it is determined to be capable of being either reflected or refracted, with a time delay of transmission being involved, and with it still being questionable as to whether the continued radiation entity is the original entity, or rather a reissue radiation entity created by the interacting particle. And finally, this myriad of simultaneous occurrences of emission and transmission and reception is such as to occur with such a degree of regularity that the details of an activity occurring at a distance of 25,000,000 light years (See Whirlpool Galaxy, can be understood and interpreted. And of course I've left out about the polarization and other properties that also need to be considered. So we obviously need some kind of a Pert plan of research activity, so as to not bog down in some of the details.WFPM (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure I understand your point, which seems somewhat off topic for this article, and is (no offense intended) a bit incoherent. Perhaps you should read up on rhodopsin and iodopsins? This article might be useful. –jacobolus (t) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a good explainer a la Dr Asimov, and it is incoherent, but it is consistent with the chronological way in which things happen, and without much detail. And the way I learned what little I know is likewise not organized and by happenstance with little planning other than idle curiosity. So you do right in your interest in special details of the process from a career interest and business purposes standpoint. But I have no such career or business purpose interest, and am merely trying to establish a rational set of ideas for my personal satisfaction, and that might help me extend my consideration of the implications of the proposed atomic structure and related possible atomic activities of my real physical nuclear models (See Talk:Nuclear model),); and the major gap in such a plan of understanding is in the area of excess energy management and redistribution. And since I like Dr Gustave Le Bon am unable to conceive of energy apart from that being created by the motion of matter, I guess that I'm stuck in a dilemma created by by my own mental processes. So again thank you for your attention.WFPM (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell none of that has much of anything to do with Visual Perception. If you’re interested in nuclear physics, you should start reading up on quantum mechanics, though you'll have to make it through some mathematical preliminaries (abstract algebra, vector algebra, vector calculus, ordinary differential equations, probability, etc.). There's really no way around it. This page has some good resources As far as I can tell M. Le Bon’s ideas fall somewhere between misguided and completely wrong, and have little relevance to modern physics. In any event, this really isn’t the place to discuss it. You should go ask at the Reference Desk if you run into difficulties in your self study. –jacobolus (t) 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I appreciate your attention and analysis of my situation and I understand your problem concerning the suitability of philosophical discussions concerning this subject matter. But I think that you'll admit that you're concerned with the delivery end of a physical matter/energy transmission process that still is not yet adequately defined. And until we know what the real nature of the photon is will not permit an adequate description of the phenomena occurring at even your end of the process. So Thank you and Cheers. WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear ladies and gentlemen[edit]

Dear ladies and gentlemen, I would like you to read the article " The Theory TK of Visual Proportions " I think you may be interested. If so, I would like to propose a collaboration or linkage.


--EspaisNT (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated}}

WP:UCN and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Sight" means visual perception far far far far far far before any other possibility. I mean, check out that disambiguation page. So there's no primary topic question, really, this is basically just a UCN issue. I believe the common name in English used in basically every field is "sight" for the ability to perceive light. Red Slash 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment wouldn't it be "vision" instead of "sight"? -- (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    Vision has too many different meanings. Visual perception is fine. Apteva (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Powers T 21:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is definitely in line with WP:COMMONNAME and common sense, though I note MOS:MED may apply, which almost always overrides COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I see you. But my perception of MOS:MED when I looked through it just now is that it's talking about layman terms for medical concepts (e.g., heart attack and things like that) which are somewhat inaccurate/imprecise... meanwhile, sight is visual perception. Red Slash 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, MOS:MED is stunning. How did anything which so blatantly contradicts WP:COMMONNAME get approved? Powers T 14:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if MOS:MED would ever carry the day in a RM. For instance, "heart attack" (while WP:COMMON) isn't a particularly precise title, and that's the example they use. I keep trying to think of where MOS:MED and the spirit of COMMONNAME (use common, English name, precise titles) would actually, in practice, come into conflict. Red Slash 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Me too. Heart attack was previously rejected (in an RM) as an article title for being too ambiguous. Diabetes is also apparently ambiguous, although it redirects to the common topic. For a case where MOSMED apparently trumps COMMONNAME, we have nocturnal emission. On the other hand, I do note that we have bruise and not contusion. We also have heartburn at the common name. And Tennis elbow. Powers T 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, I would support renaming the article as Vision, but Sight just doesn't feel right to me. This is an article about science, and I think we should title it using the scientific term. Looie496 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    Since when is "sight" not a scientific term? Powers T 16:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, what I meant to say is that when a scientific publication deals with the sensory system that uses visible light to gain information about the environment, the term used the great majority of the time is "vision", not "sight". Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You make a good point, as visual perception certainly deals with science. Nevertheless, I think the primary meaning in fact is not the scientific idea of it. Sight is a pretty universal topic. For concepts like this, we very very very very strongly prefer the WP:COMMONNAME. In any case, vision is a sight better than visual perception as a title (see what I did there?) but it's too ambiguous. Red Slash 23:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like opposition is winning on "sight," but consider trying again with "vision," "sight (sense)" or "vision (sense)." Nobody looks up "visual perception." And commonality specifically trumps technical precision for Wikipedia titles, per WP:COMMONNAME. Pdxuser (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: “Sight” is a perfectly reasonable wikipedia article to have, but there's only partial overlap with “Visual Perception”, which should contain quite a bit more detailed technical information than would be appropriate for an article about sight generally (even if this article is kind of sketchy and disorganized at the moment). Just like we shouldn’t combine “auditory system” into “hearing”, “somatosensory system” into “touch”, “gustatory system” into “taste”, “perception” and “cognition” and “psychology” into “thought”, “nutrition” into “eating”, &c. There’s plenty of room in Wikipedia for both. Wiki isn’t paper. –jacobolus (t) 04:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Well, fortunately, no one is proposing moving Visual system to Sight, which would be the proper analogy to your examples. Powers T 20:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps I used a bad analogy. Instead of being sidetracked by the analogy though, consider the direct content of my previous comment. I contend that: (1) Sight is one topic worthy of a Wikipedia article, including subtopics like bees’ attraction to colorful things that look like flowers, human appreciation for painting, the philosophical distinctions between vision in the brain vs physical stimuli in the world, treatment and cultural accommodations for blind people, &c. &c. which are somewhat inappropriate for an article about visual perception, and (2) Visual perception is a separate topic worthy of a separate Wikipedia article, including subtopics with detailed technical information about spatial contrast discrimination, models of color perception incorporating or not incorporating various types of perceptual effects (“optical illusions” etc.), the specific anatomy and neurophysiology of the eye and visual systems in the brain, &c. which I think would be slightly off-topic or inappropriate for an article about “sight”. I think it sounds entirely reasonable to write a new wikipedia article focusing on “sight”, but it should be written from scratch, and this current article, which is not at all structured appropriately to be about the topic of “sight” in general, should be left where it is instead of being moved. –jacobolus (t) 00:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Or as a shorter version of my previous comment: I think moving this article offers no net benefit to wikipedia, and spending effort on this discussion here is something like bikeshedding. Someone who wants to see a good wiki article about “sight” should go off and write one. Doing that would actually be a productive use of their own and community time. –jacobolus (t) 01:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm inclined to say that Sight is a broader term that encompasses both visual perception and the visual system. If Sight were a page, I think it would need to contain the information of both, and I think they work perfectly fine as separate pages. Sight just seems like too a broad topic to cover in a single page in any kind of detail. Serotonick (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OpposeSight is way too ambiguous to be making arbitrary primary topic claims on. And Visual perception seems fine for that article. Leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    What other topic on the disambiguation page is even remotely competitive? Powers T 18:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's not about other topics, so much as about the ambiguity of meaning. It's clear what visual perception means, while sight means many different things. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, some words have other meanings, but "visual perception" is the most basic and most encyclopedic of them all. It's the one people would expect to be at an encyclopedia article about "sight". Powers T 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copy vio?[edit]

@Diannaa: Your advice please. Large sections of this article seem to be copy vio, for example the section Face and object recognition is identical to sections of and section The cognitive and computational approaches is identical to parts of this.
I am reluctant to delete them, as that would severely affect the article and I'm not sure who has copied whom. Could you please look at them? Apuldram (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Apuldram and thanks for your report. It looks to me like both of those pages have copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The Omics page is a mirror, I believe. It's also a predatory publisher. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)