Buy this issue now" data-pin-do="buttonBookmark">
Hatpin Urchin Illusion
> Buy this issue now
Image: COURTESY OF AKIYOSHI KITAOKA Ritsumeikan University
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Slide Show: 10 Sample Illusions
This special issue, 169 Best Illusions, contains a smorgasbord of static images that appear to be moving (such as the Hatpin Urchin shown here), “impossible” sculptures, freaky faces, ghostly afterimages and even some edible illusions.
Illusions make great eye candy, but they also serve a serious purpose. When we look at an illusion, we “see” something that does not match the physical reality of the world around us. Scientists take advantage of this discrepancy between perception and reality to gain insights into how our eyes and brains gather and interpret (or misinterpret) visual information. Here’s a sneak peek at 10 different types of illusions and what they reveal.
If you're near Naples, Fla., on May 10, head on over to the Naples Philharmonic Center for the Arts, where the 2010 Best Illusion of the Year Contest Gala will be held starting at 5 PM (Scientific American is a media sponsor). Here, the top 10 illusionists will present their creations and the attendees of the event will vote to pick the top three winners!
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentIf you cover the squares between A and B, the illusion disappears.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting. While the colours and textures in illusion number 10 seemed strange (like clay), I didn't clue in to the fact that there was food in the picture until I read the caption. Perhaps because I'm vegetarian?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn no.2, if you cover the same half of each photo vertically (look at left side, then right), they look identical. Or, if you compare the skies behind the tower they look identical! Suddenly they look the same!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just can't get Boogie to look at me. Maybe I worked with negatives for too long?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just can't get Boogie to look at me. Maybe I worked with negatives for too long?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@eco-steve: Are you so insecure about your beliefs that you have to bring them up in a fun illusion blog. Maybe if you keep typing your bigoted comments everywhere you can, you might start to believe them yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis somehow proves the existence of a Protestant concept of "God" and disproves the theory o' evolution, doesn't it ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissomehow ?
PLEASE
I don't think #6 is a good illusion. From where I'm sitting, Humphrey appears to be looking in exactly the same direction in both pictures. Does anyone think it looks like he's looking to the left in the second picture?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi like #7, i did not see the dolphins u ntil i read the description
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscool stuff....like everyone i had differing times to see each of them...not sure what was supposed to happen with #10...just saw a landscape made out of food.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI saw Bogie looking out of the corner of his eye at me, not off to my left.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe meat thing puzzles me--I saw the landscape and then started seeing pepperoni, etc, but it's not an illusion, is it? What does it test or prove?
Two of the illusions did not really work for me in that the captioned description was not my initial perception. I still cannot see any neon light spreading regardless of how much I look at that picture, and it took some effort to see the negative of Bogart looking at me. Now I can switch back and forth between the two perceptions as with the dolphins/sex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre there some people who do not see the illusion with the gray blocks which I personally am unable to shake? Additionally, the leaning tower and gender perception were very impressive to me. The difference or lack thereof between the pictures was immediately obvious but I cannot alter my perception from as described by the caption.
In number 3...... the illusion skull is the same colour as its background.... so if one changes the colour of the background the colour of the illusion will change to that colour aswell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn number 3.... the illusion of the skull is the same as the colour of its background... so if one changes the colour of the background the colour of the skull will change aswel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe photo for Illusion 9 is of a sculpture by Matheu Hemaekers and not Brian McKay. See http://im-possible.info/english/art/sculpture/hemaekers_unity.html. McKay's impossible triangle can be found at http://im-possible.info/english/articles/real/real3.html.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdepends on your point of view of the person, and their experience, looks something or other.
JorgeGGC
In #6 his eyes are still looking in the same direction. I don't understand how this is an illusion? I don't see the illusion. I'm sorry Pawan Sinha but your illusion and explanation don't hold up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I can change the perception of illusion on the photo of Boggart. In the negative photo, I can see hi looking to the left or to the right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this the May 2010 issue of SA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at slide 11 you will see that it is the July 2010 issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen most of these before. I like them but was hoping for something more. What I find interesting is how well they do or don't work depending on how tired I am. Some work better when I'm tired and other get worse when I'm tired.
I wonder what impact different mental illnesses would have on them as well.
As a long term subscriber (more than 40 years) I am very frustrated that the printed version of " 169 Illusions" seems to be unavailable to existing subscribers. This seems to be a poor reward for long-term loyalty!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard McConnell
These "illusions" are nice examples of the constructivist theory of perception i.e. it is actually our brain rather than our eye that tells us what we "see."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI printed out the illustration and sure enough the squares A and B are similar shades; however, no matter what I do on the screen - eg covering contrasting squares - they look very different. I think the computer screen image has been "tricked" so that it translates the original with a difference in shading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGordon W.
I saw no motion of Checkerboard and cylander; but thde vry busy adsveertising to the right may have distracyed me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI saw no motion of the board or the cylander; thde busy commercals to the right may have obliterated the intended
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisillusion
This series of visual illusions is useful to me in teaching philosophy to 16 year old students when we look at empirical knowledge, and its limitations in a topic 'why are humans so easily deceived'. Thanks, Anne McCallum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any way to order this issue in print form?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this