Why you can see in the dark: it’s just a bunch of hand-waving

A team of scientists at the Universities of Rochester and Vanderbilt has found that study participants can see, and follow with their eyes, a ghostly image of their hand, when they wave it in front of their completely occluded eyes.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



Our nervous systems are good at establishing connections. You learn your boss’s name on your first day at work and from then on associate it with her face. You enjoy a new food at a restaurant and start ordering it when you go out to eat. Repeated experiences such as these strengthen neural connections and form the bases for powerful expectations about our sensory experiences. If you have children or have interacted with very young infants, you may remember the point in time in which they appeared to discover their own hands. Babies will wave and turn around their hands in front of their faces, time and again, for minutes at a time, throughout the course of the day. Some weeks or months after, they stop playing that game: they have figured out that the hands are theirs and can move them in certain ways to achieve specific results. They have associated the visual image of their hands and the related kinematics in an enduring fashion. The association will persist, and grow stronger, through their childhood and into their adult lives. In many individuals, the link will be so robust that hand motion, by itself, will produce a visual image, even in total darkness.


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.



A team of scientists at the Universities of Rochester and Vanderbilt has found that study participants can see, and follow with their eyes, a ghostly image of their hand, when they wave it in front of their completely occluded eyes. Some of the experimental subjects in which the visual illusion was strongest were grapheme-color synesthetes: people who experience numbers and letters as having particular colors. You can try to replicate the experiment at home: in complete darkness, wave your hand slowly in front of your face and see if you can discern the (illusory) motion. Then have somebody else wave his or her hand in front of your face instead. The kinematics of your own hand motion may produce an illusion in the first case, but somebody else’s hand kinematics will not generate a comparable sensation, because your brain has not learned to associate your visual experience with their hand motion.

Susana Martinez-Conde is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. She is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind, along with Stephen Macknik and Sandra Blakeslee, and of Champions of Illusion, along with Stephen Macknik.

More by Susana Martinez-Conde

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe