A Dangerous Optical Illusion  

A common vision correction could interfere with depth perception while driving

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The lenses in human eyes lose some ability to focus as they age. Monovision—a popular fix for this issue—involves prescription contacts (or glasses) that focus one eye for near-vision tasks such as reading and the other for far-vision tasks such as driving. About 10 million people in the U.S. currently use this form of correction, but a new study finds it may cause a potentially dangerous optical illusion.

Nearly a century ago German physicist Carl Pulfrich described a visual phenomenon now known as the Pulfrich effect: When one eye sees either a darker or a lower-contrast image than the other, an object moving side to side (such as a pendulum) appears to travel in a three-dimensional arc. This is because the brain processes the darker or lower-contrast image more slowly than the lighter or higher-contrast one, creating a lag the brain perceives as 3-D motion.

Johannes Burge, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and his colleagues recently found that monovision can cause a reverse Pulfrich effect. They had participants look through a device showing a different image to each eye—one blurry and one in focus—of an object moving side to side. The researchers found that viewers processed the blurrier image a couple of milliseconds faster than the sharper one, making the object seem to arc in front of the display screen. It appeared closer to the viewer as it moved to the right (if the left eye saw the blurry image) or to the left (if the right eye did). “That does not sound like a very big deal,” Burge says, but it is enough for a driver at an intersection to misjudge the location of a moving cyclist by about the width of a narrow street lane (graphic).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Credit: Brown Bird Design

Burge and his colleagues had expected the opposite: that the brain would process the blurry image more slowly because of its lower contrast, similar to the traditional Pulfrich effect. They resolved this paradox by showing that blur reduces the contrast of fine details more than that of coarse ones. Because the brain takes more time to process fine details, the blurry image is processed faster. The researchers published their study in August in Current Biology.

Douglas Lanska, a retired University of Wisconsin neurologist who has studied the Pulfrich effect and was not involved in the study, calls the findings “intriguing” but says, “My guess is that the modeling overestimated the real-world impact some.” The reverse Pulfrich effect should be tested outside the laboratory, Lanska adds.

Burge and his team found they could correct the effect by tinting the blurrier lens, creating a classic Pulfrich effect that cancels out the reverse one. The brain may also compensate for the limitations of monovision—but further study is needed, Burge says. These misperceptions are rare, he notes, suggesting that “under normal circumstances, our visual systems are exquisitely well calibrated.”

Tanya Lewis is senior desk editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She writes and edits stories for the website and print magazine on topics ranging from COVID to organ transplants. She also appears on Scientific American’s podcast Science Quickly and writes Scientific American’s weekly Health & Medicine newsletter. She has held a number of positions over her nine years at Scientific American, including health editor, assistant news editor and associate editor at Scientific American Mind. Previously, she has written for outlets that include Insider, Wired, Science News and others. She has a degree in biomedical engineering from Brown University and one in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Follow her on Bluesky @tanyalewis.bsky.social

More by Tanya Lewis
Scientific American Magazine Vol 321 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Depth-Defying Illusion” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 321 No. 4 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1019-16

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe