Yup, it's a motion after effect. I doubt it "evolved" for a specific purpose however. Adaptation effects of this sort are thought to result from neural "fatigue." That is, the tendency for a neuron not to fire after a prolonged period of high activation. The idea that short term neural adaptation exists for some purpose other than straightforward biological constraints is appealing on the surface, but unlikely imo. You have to remember that it only works if stimuli are held perfectly still with respect to the retina for periods that are much longer than natural. In fact, there are some that argue there are special eye-movements to ensure that exactly that doesn't happen (look up Troxler fading for a similar phenomenon).

However, it's an extremely useful phenomenon empirically. The effect can be used to probe the stimuli that a distinct subpopulation of neurons (the adapted subpopulation) is responsive to. This ability to make inferences about neural mechanisms from strictly behavioral evidence rather than direct neural recordings makes it an important psychophysical tool. Behavioral arguments of this sort, where it is shown a population of neurons specifically responsive to X must exist, often precede physiological confirmation obtained later either with functional imaging studies or electrophysiological recordings in animal models.

Speaking of how hardwired we humans come into existence, I once read something about a study that they did with newborn babies. Like just some days old newborns. They put these two items above these kids, so that they could look at them while they lie in their beds and tracked the babies eye movements. The two items where a little car, made of metal and a nice round sun (like a stuffed animal). The interesting thing they found out was that the majority of the male babies looked way more often and longer at the car, whilst the majority of the female babies looked at the sun.
It's quite impressive to see how predestined we are.... some people are just born car mechanics.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

The eye movement is normal, and it compensates for the head bob when the dog runs so that little scruffy here has a smooth vision while bouncing. We do the same thing when we walk, but to a lesser extent because our head doesn't bob as much. Some birds don't have a moving eye in the socket, and would require stop-and-go motion while walking, such as pigeons, or head/neck rotation/panning for owls. Unlike humans, most birds have a refresh rate of at least 100Hz, so the effect cannot be compensated by rapid in-socket eye movement.


This is why you can tape a camera to a chicken's head and use it for a steadicam. No bullshit.

The eye movement is normal, and it compensates for the head bob when the dog runs so that little scruffy here has a smooth vision while bouncing. We do the same thing when we walk, but to a lesser extent because our head doesn't bob as much. Some birds don't have a moving eye in the socket, and would require stop-and-go motion while walking, such as pigeons, or head/neck rotation/panning for owls. Unlike humans, most birds have a refresh rate of at least 100Hz, so the effect cannot be compensated by rapid in-socket eye movement.

The cat is realz!! Eye movement at 0:27, head movement at 0:33. (it could be being lifted by someone though).

Whatever the case, this is pure gold.

I have just reviewed this several times in deference to your observations/perceptions. I'm sorry, but I discern no expression changes at all start to finish, no whisker movement, blinking, nostril dilation, etc. There is an artifact of a shifting nature however. Notice the movement of the object. It is purely vertical. Quite unnatural. Originally, I perceived it to be possibly 2D because of the rigid unnatural movement up and down.

With all due respect, however, I could be bonkers. Well, that may be beside the point.

Enjoy.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chicchorea:
Ya'll do know it's not a real cat, right?

Looks real...it makes very subtle individual facial and eye movements that you can see. So if it's a puppet it's better than any puppet I've ever seen ever, must have a bout 20 servos in it's face.

>> ^chicchorea:

Ya'll do know it's not a real cat, right?


Looks real...it makes very subtle individual facial and eye movements that you can see. So if it's a puppet it's better than any puppet I've ever seen ever, must have a bout 20 servos in it's face.

This is just the third video I've seen with this guy, and I can't watch him anymore. The smarminess, the constant head-nodding and eye movements and thinking he's so clever and funny... I just can't do it.

"Village man-without-a-Range-Rover." That one was pretty good. I'm still convinced Seth Rogan is only funny because of his erratic eye movement and general awkwardness.

Is Eli by any chance blind? I feel kinda bad laughing at this, cause it looks like he might be blind, due to the wierd eye-movement.

>> ^farcrafter:
What about looking left for recall, looking right for making things up? Or maybe the other way round.

This isn't reliable. It's true that the majority of people look up and to the right for visual creation and up and to the left for visual recall, but without a point of reference, it's useless. First of all, a good portion of people have that reversed. Secondly, you can ask someone who you know has "normal" points of reference what color their couch is. They may not "recall" what it looks like but rather create a scene, then place the couch in it. They look up and to right to create the scene. So when they say green, you call them a liar. You will have egg on your face when you go over for a visit.

Eye movement can be extremely useful, but without a deeper understanding of it, it is not only useless but often misleading.

Thanks. I didn't want to rain on anyone's amygdala. The human mind is wondrous. It can influence the masses, stirring them to great good, or great evil. However, there is not a shred of sound scientific evidence that the mind can influence inorganic matter, of any kind, that it's not directly wired to. I guess it would be POSSIBLE that a human brain could be made to operate systems without direct connection, but it would only be through remote sensing of regional brain blood flow or neural activity. (I'm eliminating detection of eye movement here.) Regardless, it would require powered sensors to complete the circuit.

^ ^ ^ You have to stare at it longer than it is shown in this video.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col_lilacChaser/index.html

Let your gaze rest on the central fixation cross, but observe with your “inner eye” the patches just when they disappear. With good fixation, you should see a strong greenish colour whenever the violet patch has disappeared.

When you are fixating well, after a few cycles you will actually see a rotating green spot! If your gaze is really steady, the magenta patches will disappear, leaving only a rotating green spot; when you then make any eye movements the circle reappears.

The legendary reason for sunglasses and hats and what not is that people want to see emotions in eyes. I just don't think this is true. You simply don't want someone looking. All the biggest tells in poker is the pattern of eye movement that someone goes through. With most people it's entirely instinctual.

If you play poker I highly recommend trying this: when the flop comes out, look at the eyes of at least one player, preferably any player who raised preflop or who called a big bet preflop. When they look at the flop, see where they look next.
* a look away, *especially* a look away from the oncoming action, generally means they either hit big, or have a big draw.
* a look towards the oncoming action usually means they will fold.
* staring at the flop usually means they don't have anything, particularly if they raised preflop
* looking at their chips means they are probably going to bet
* looking at your chips, or their opponent's chips, means they are *probably* going to bet but are thinking of pulling a bluff. They're trying to reckon how much they'd have to bet to make you fold. Alternatively this sometimes means they are considering taking a gamble and trying to decide whether you have enough money in front of you to make it worthwhile. For clarification, if there is $100 in the pot and my opponent only has $100 in front of him, I am not going to take a long shot gamble. If there is $100 in the pot and my opponent has $1000 then I might, if I think I can get his whole stack if I hit.

Anyway, I gather it's sort of against the rules to self-link, but if I upload all or part of the Caro video to youtube, can I link to it?