Dataset Information

Why Does Rubin's Vase Differ Radically From Optical Illusions? Framing Effects Contra Cognitive Illusions.

ABSTRACT: Many researchers use the term "context" loosely to denote diverse kinds of reference points. The issue is not about terminology but rather about the common conflation of one kind of reference points, such as rules of perception, which is responsible for optical illusions, with another kind, known as "context" or "frame," as exemplified in Rubin's vase. Many researchers regard Rubin's vase as a special kind of optical illusions. This paper rather argues that the two phenomena are radically different. Optical illusions are occasional mistakes that people quickly recognize and eagerly correct, while the different figures of Rubin's vase are not mistakes but, rather, the outcomes of different perspectives that do not need correction. The competing figures in Rubin's vase can, at best, in light of more information, be more warranted or unwarranted. This paper discusses at length one ramification of the proposed distinction. The framing effects, such as loss/gain frame, are the products of contexts and, hence, resemble greatly the figures in Rubin's vase. In contrast, cognitive illusions generated occasionally by the rules of thumb (heuristics) are mistakes and, hence, resemble optical illusions. The proposed distinction carries other ramifications regarding, e.g., happiness studies, moral judgments, and the new philosophy of science.

SUBMITTER: Khalil EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8490627 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Why Does Rubin's Vase Differ Radically From Optical Illusions? Framing Effects <i>Contra</i> Cognitive Illusions.

Khalil Elias L EL

Frontiers in psychology 20210921

Many researchers use the term "context" loosely to denote diverse kinds of reference points. The issue is not about terminology but rather about the common conflation of one kind of reference points, such as rules of perception, which is responsible for optical illusions, with another kind, known as "context" or "frame," as exemplified in Rubin's vase. Many researchers regard Rubin's vase as a special kind of optical illusions. This paper rather argues that the two phenomena are radically differ ...[more]

PMID: 34621202

Similar Datasets

Project description:We tested the plausibility of a cognitive-emotional model to understand the effects of messages framed in terms of gain, non-loss, non-gain, and loss, and related to the health consequences of red/processed meat consumption. A total of 544 Italian participants reported their attitude toward reduced red/processed meat consumption and intention to eat red/processed meat (time 1 questionnaire). One week later, participants were randomly assigned to four different message conditions: (a) gain messages focused on the positive health outcomes associated with low meat consumption; (b) non-loss messages focused on the avoided negative health outcomes associated with low meat consumption; (c) non-gain messages focused on the missed positive health outcomes associated with high meat consumption; (d) loss messages focused on the negative health outcomes associated with high meat consumption (message sending). After reading the messages, participants answered a series of questions regarding their emotional and cognitive reactions to the messages, their evaluation of the messages, and again their attitude and intention toward red/processed meat consumption (time 2 questionnaire). Comparing different multivariate linear models under the Bayesian approach, we selected the model with the highest plausibility conditioned to observed data. In this model, message-induced fear influenced systematic processing, which in turn positively influenced message evaluation and attitude, leading to reduced intention to consume red/processed meat. Vice versa, message-induced anger reduced systematic processing, which in turn negatively influenced message evaluation, and led to no effect on attitude and intention. The comparison among message conditions showed that gain and non-loss messages activated integrated emotional and cognitive processing of the health recommendation, while loss and non-gain messages mainly activated emotional shortcuts toward attitude and intention. Overall, these results advance our comprehension of the effects of message framing on receivers' attitudes and intentions.

Project description:Lightness Illusions (Contrast, Assimilation, and Natural Scenes with Edges and Gradients) show that appearances do not correlate with the light sent from the scene to the eye. Lightness Illusions begin with a control experiment that includes two identical Gray Regions-Of-Interest(GrayROI) that have equal appearances in uniform surrounds. The Illusion experiment modifies "the-rest-of-the-scene" to make these GrayROIs appear different from each other. Our visual system performs complex-spatial transformations of scene-luminance patterns using two independent spatial mechanisms: optical and neural. First, optical veiling glare transforms scene luminances into a different light pattern on receptors, called retinal contrasts. This article provides a new Python program that calculates retinal contrast. Equal scene luminances become unequal retinal contrasts. Uniform scene segments become nonuniform retinal gradients; darker regions acquire substantial scattered light; and the retinal range-of-light changes. The glare on each receptor is the sum of the individual contributions from every other scene segment. Glare responds to the content of the entire scene. Glare is a scene-dependent optical transformation. Lightness Illusions are intended to demonstrate how our "brain sees" using simple-uniform patterns. However, the after-glare pattern of light on receptors is a morass of high-and low-slope gradients. Quantitative measurements, and pseudocolor renderings are needed to appreciate the magnitude, and spatial patterns of glare. Glare's gradients are invisible when you inspect them. Illusions are generated by neural responses from "the-rest-of-the-scene." The neural network input is the simultaneous array of all receptors' responses. Neural processing performs vision's second scene-dependent spatial transformation. Neural processing generates appearances in Illusions and Natural Scenes. "Glare's Paradox" is that glare adds more re-distributed light to GrayROIs that appear darker, and less light to those that appear lighter. This article describes nine experiments in which neural-spatial-image processing overcompensates the effects of glare. This article studies the first-step in imaging: scene-dependent glare. Despite near invisibility, glare modifies all quantitative measurements of images. This article reveals glare's modification of input data used in quantitative image analysis and models of vision, as well as visual image-quality metrics. Glare redefines the challenges in modeling Lightness Illusions. Neural spatial processing is more powerful than we realized.

Dataset Information

Why Does Rubin's Vase Differ Radically From Optical Illusions? Framing Effects Contra Cognitive Illusions.

Publications

Why Does Rubin's Vase Differ Radically From Optical Illusions? Framing Effects <i>Contra</i> Cognitive Illusions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets