Motion Induced Blindness

[Dave_K.]

Yesterday, the author of a new book "The Three-Pound Enigma" gave an interesting talk at my work. She sited an example of "Motion Induced Blindness" as something that is still largely unexplained in the brain. I could immediately see this as a possible application in shmups, and really wonder if this is something that developers already know about, and exploit?

I believe the topic of MIB was brought up at least once before on the board here, but I couldn't find the thread. Anyway, here is a little background:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 798a0.html

Cases in which salient visual stimuli do not register consciously are known to occur in special conditions, such as the presentation of dissimilar stimuli to the two eyes or when images are stabilized on the retina. Here, we report a striking phenomenon of 'visual disappearance' observed with normal-sighted observers under natural conditions. When a global moving pattern is superimposed on high-contrast stationary or slowly moving stimuli, the latter disappear and reappear alternately for periods of several seconds. We show that this motion-induced blindness (MIB) phenomenon is unlikely to reflect retinal suppression, sensory masking or adaptation. The phenomenology observed includes perceptual grouping effects, object rivalry and visual field anisotropy. This is very similar to that found in other types of visual disappearance, as well as in clinical cases of attention deficits, in which partial invisibility might occur despite the primary visual areas being intact3. Disappearance might reflect a disruption of attentional processing, which shifts the system into a winner-takes-all mode, uncovering the dynamics of competition between object representations within the human visual system.

Clearly shmup games use the technique of global moving patterns superimposed over/under high-contrast stationary or other slowing moving patterns. Some important things to note are that MIB has shown to not be a simple "optical illiusion", as in retinal supression of any kind, but more a "disruption of attentional processing".

Checkout this example of MIB:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_mib/

Comment

Steady fixation favours disappearance, blinks or gaze shifts induce reappearance. All in all reminiscent of the Troxler effect, but stronger and more resistant to residual eye movements.

This leads to some interesting questions related to playing shmups:

I may be wrong, but I also believe I read somewhere that japanese video game players' eyes saccade more often then western players. Could this be one of the reasons why they are better at certin games? Is it mearly a learned response to the MIB phenomenon?

One could also assume that playing on a 29" tated screen, versus a 14" tated amiga monitor, would require more eye/head movements, also reducing the MIB effect. So could screen size really have a physiological advantage?

If MIB is a factor of attentional processing, could this imply that shmup playing favors those with ADD? Or more importantly, contribute to some form of ADD?

[Vexorg]

As someone who has had ADD for as long as I can remember, I'd say it's far more a hindrance than anything to being able to play shmups (or any other sort of video games) well. It takes years of practice to get good at these types of games (or any games for that matter) and I find in my case I have a really hard time focusing on any one game for long enough to make any significant improvements. I imagine the fact that I only have one good eye doesn't help much either (especially when I usually play on a cabinet with a 25" monitor at close range.)

[raiden]

the flash example is stunning. With it, you can keep reproducing the all-too-common phenomenon of losing track of the single bullet that kills you.

[Twiddle]

That's it.

We should develop a manic shooter whose bullet patterns are purely optical illusions.

[cigsthecat]

Dave, this is an interesting topic. I missed it skimming through the sea of crap threads and I imagine others have done the same.

I may be wrong, but I also believe I read somewhere that japanese video game players' eyes saccade more often then western players. Could this be one of the reasons why they are better at certin games? Is it mearly a learned response to the MIB phenomenon?

I'd be interested in reading about that if you find a link or something. I still contend that the key component we are missing is information. I think, for example that if the top 5 players on this forum suddenly learned Japanese and moved to Tokyo after a few years (probably much less) they would be pulling in Japanese level scores. Practice, information, interest and skill are what's needed to be a top level player. Lack of information and dedication to a single game for a period of time is what most are lacking.

One could also assume that playing on a 29" tated screen, versus a 14" tated amiga monitor, would require more eye/head movements, also reducing the MIB effect. So could screen size really have a physiological advantage?

I don't see how this is an argument for a larger screen. If anything it makes a case for the smaller one.

One of the first things you learn after a bit of time with shooters is not to stare directly at your ship all the time. You can't see the forest for the trees, to use a lame cliche. The MIB effect as that link demonstrates is what happens when you stare at just the ship. What you want to do is take in the whole screen at once, giving special attention here and there as needed.

The smaller screen makes this far easier.

[DC906270]

a smaller screen may in theory make co-ordination/placement of enemies and (perhaps?)response time quicker, but bullets will be more difficult to see, and i think a larger screen is still better for manouvering through bullet patterns and judging hitbox

[Randorama]

Uhm, i am missing the definition of ADD though. Is there any more recent literature on the argument?

[cigsthecat]

ADD= Attention Deficit Disorder

[bpe]

Interesting ! But I wonder, would it work if the grid was stationary and the dots were spinning ? I'm not sure it would, because the effect seems to be that the spinning grid is "eating" the dot and hence your brain stops monitoring it. At the typical background scrolling speeds (not to mention the lack of high contrast, which is good) I'm not sure this is relevant for shmups... unless it does work in reverse, ie the moving object itself disappears.

As for screensize.. for me the effect was working even while reading the text on the left : if you try paying attention to the dots without actually looking at them but reading on instead, they also do funky things. So, moving the eyes around doesn't kill the effect, thus 29" doesn't help.. At least not for this

Wicked stuff though, nice find.

[professor ganson]

Related discussion here:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... ter+centre

[Dave_K.]

I may be wrong, but I also believe I read somewhere that japanese video game players' eyes saccade more often then western players. Could this be one of the reasons why they are better at certin games? Is it mearly a learned response to the MIB phenomenon?

I'd be interested in reading about that if you find a link or something. I still contend that the key component we are missing is information. I think, for example that if the top 5 players on this forum suddenly learned Japanese and moved to Tokyo after a few years (probably much less) they would be pulling in Japanese level scores. Practice, information, interest and skill are what's needed to be a top level player. Lack of information and dedication to a single game for a period of time is what most are lacking.

I'm having no luck finding where I read this. It might have been an informal observation rather than a real study. I'll keep searching. I do agree that the combination of information, practice and dedication are what mainly contribute to high level scores. If MIB is a factor, then more time spent practicing could train you to do less focusing on your ship when you become more familiar with the paterns.

One could also assume that playing on a 29" tated screen, versus a 14" tated amiga monitor, would require more eye/head movements, also reducing the MIB effect. So could screen size really have a physiological advantage?

I don't see how this is an argument for a larger screen. If anything it makes a case for the smaller one.

One of the first things you learn after a bit of time with shooters is not to stare directly at your ship all the time. You can't see the forest for the trees, to use a lame cliche. The MIB effect as that link demonstrates is what happens when you stare at just the ship. What you want to do is take in the whole screen at once, giving special attention here and there as needed.

The smaller screen makes this far easier.

I agree, we all start playing shmups focusing on the ship, mostly to figure out the hitbox, and then learn to take use more peripheral vision to take in the entire patterns/screen. But having a smaller physical screen means you are having less eye/head movements, thus more likely to succumb to the MIB effect. With a larger screen you have to take in more of the periphery, which means saccading your eyes more frequently, reducing any MIB effect. Try the flash example I linked above.

[Dave_K.]

a smaller screen may in theory make co-ordination/placement of enemies and (perhaps?)response time quicker, but bullets will be more difficult to see, and i think a larger screen is still better for manouvering through bullet patterns and judging hitbox

This is the classic argument for larger screen, and I generally agree with it. But its probably more a factor of FOV (field of view), as you could conceivably get the same FOV on a smaller screen by sitting closer to it.

[Dave_K.]

Interesting ! But I wonder, would it work if the grid was stationary and the dots were spinning ? I'm not sure it would, because the effect seems to be that the spinning grid is "eating" the dot and hence your brain stops monitoring it. At the typical background scrolling speeds (not to mention the lack of high contrast, which is good) I'm not sure this is relevant for shmups... unless it does work in reverse, ie the moving object itself disappears.

I wasn't thinking of scrolling backgrounds, but rather bullet patterns. Think of some patterns in DDPDOJ (stage 3 comes to mind), where you have large sets of fast blue bullets moving downard, and slower sets of ping bullets moving across. Couldn't you say the blue bullets are "eating" the pink bullets? And if you aren't familiar with the common dodging techniques for these patterns, you may find yourself focusing down more often on the ship to monitor the hitbox.

As for screensize.. for me the effect was working even while reading the text on the left : if you try paying attention to the dots without actually looking at them but reading on instead, they also do funky things. So, moving the eyes around doesn't kill the effect, thus 29" doesn't help.. At least not for this

Interesting. In your example here, the flash player is always in your periphery, since you are focusing on reading the letters. And with a large screen, more often then not your ship will be in your periphery. I'm sure I died many times like this playing shmups. But because of that, I propose that you learn to saccade your eyes more frequently around the screen to make sure you don't do this (also decreasing any MIB effect).

[Dave_K.]

Related discussion here:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... ter+centre

Ahh, thanks for the link! And great assessment of that effect.

[LUNardei]

I'm having no luck finding where I read this. It might have been an informal observation rather than a real study.

Find that stuff!

I'll keep searching. I do agree that the combination of information, practice and dedication are what mainly contribute to high level scores. If MIB is a factor, then more time spent practicing could train you to do less focusing on your ship when you become more familiar with the paterns.

The idea that practice can put us all on the same level is very politically correct but simply false (again, read this for clarifications). A high level of saccade can be part of the natural equipment given by evolution to japanese people. Practice can improve things, but within a certain range.
So info, practice and dedication are a huge part of an high level scores, but not the only, and I'm again repeating myself. Find that stuff abovementioned, it can be one of the proofs about that.

[Valgar]

I wasn't thinking of scrolling backgrounds, but rather bullet patterns. Think of some patterns in DDPDOJ (stage 3 comes to mind), where you have large sets of fast blue bullets moving downard, and slower sets of ping bullets moving across. Couldn't you say the blue bullets are "eating" the pink bullets? And if you aren't familiar with the common dodging techniques for these patterns, you may find yourself focusing down more often on the ship to monitor the hitbox.

That shit bothers the hell out of my friend. Multiple color bullets.

[louisg]

The idea that practice can put us all on the same level is very politically correct but simply false (again, read this for clarifications). A high level of saccade can be part of the natural equipment given by evolution to japanese people. Practice can improve things, but within a certain range.
So info, practice and dedication are a huge part of an high level scores, but not the only, and I'm again repeating myself. Find that stuff abovementioned, it can be one of the proofs about that.

Aren't we jumping the gun a little here? Sure, genetics have something to do with success in anything physical, but I think we might be making an assumption that since it's politically incorrect to say X, then X must be true. I can't help but think the high number of high scorers there might have to do more with having an arcade culture overseas-- more people playing will likely result in more people succeeding (just like I'd make a wager we have better Quake players). An interesting phenomenon though.

[maco]

Is this the link http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7882

[LUNardei]

Is this the link http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7882

Very interesting, but seems not totally related to MIB. Dart around is not saccade, I think, correct me if I'm wrong!

[LUNardei]

Aren't we jumping the gun a little here?

That was not my intention, or at least not against Dave

Sure, genetics have something to do with success in anything physical,

Well, someone stated the opposite about videogames. It's... Sick, it's a lie.

I can't help but think the high number of high scorers there might have to do more with having an arcade culture overseas-- more people playing will likely result in more people succeeding (just like I'd make a wager we have better Quake players). An interesting phenomenon though.

The main point imho is: we know pretty much all about the environment around a japanese player (other players, knowledge, 29" monitor, cabs etc.) and his anal culture (perfection above all, competition etc.). What we don't know are the context relevant physical differences between us and them. I think it's time to stop saying that we can do what they do IF xxx, it is false atm. Let's see why.

[cigsthecat]

But having a smaller physical screen means you are having less eye/head movements,

Right. This is a good thing- you can take in the whole screen at once, no head movement needed.

thus more likely to succumb to the MIB effect.

Less likely. The MIB effect happens when you focus on the dot (ship), not when you look at the entire image. The small screen makes it easier to take it all in at once.

With a larger screen you have to take in more of the periphery, which means saccading your eyes more frequently, reducing any MIB effect. Try the flash example I linked above.

On the larger screen you can't easily take it all in at once, so you're more apt to stare at the ship, increasing the MIB effect. The proximity of the screen and the angle of it on Astro City cabs for example also contribute.

That's my theory. I'm not saying one can't adapt, but this is how I'm affected.

[Dave_K.]

Is this the link http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7882

Thanks Maco, that is the article I remember reading.

LUNardei, darting of eyes around a picture is saccade. Sine this article was published in an academy journal, it must have had some amount of formal study involved. I understand your point in that most people do not want to jeapordize equality and call out genetic favoring, but I though these things normally evolve over 100s of years (maybe more), and video games have only been around for what, 25 years? If you can find some reference, or evidence to this natural selection of saccade before video games, I'd be willing to listen. But without some plausable theory, cultural upbringing sounds more logical than policitally correct.

[LUNardei]

Thanks Maco, that is the article I remember reading.
LUNardei, darting of eyes around a picture is saccade.

Ok! I was thinking about micro movements

Sine this article was published in an academy journal, it must have had some amount of formal study involved.

Absolutely. They talk about the experiment they did, I don't ask more.

I understand your point in that most people do not want to jeapordize equality and call out genetic favoring, but I though these things normally evolve over 100s of years (maybe more), and video games have only been around for what, 25 years? If you can find some reference, or evidence to this natural selection of saccade before video games, I'd be willing to listen. But without some plausable theory, cultural upbringing sounds more logical than policitally correct.

I was not thinking about an evolution due to videogames, that's absurd, I agree. What I say is that probably asian people has some physical characteristics (how can I say, "features") which helps a lot in shooting games (and videogames in general). A lot means that I put on the same plain nature, culture and environment.
It's not that weird, think about (stupid example) coloured people and basketball. Very stupid example, but fits well.

[Dave_K.]

Cigs, I see the logic of smaller screen = not moving head = more efficency of seeing whats going on in the entire picture, but wouldn't that also mean less eye movement since you are focusing on the entire screen = higher chance of MIB? Conversily, a larger screen means greater eye (and possibly head) movement to scan the entire screen, which disfavors MIB as stated.

I guess I don't understand what you are actually looking at if you focus on the entire screen as a whole. Try that flash example, since its already a small window, look at the picture as a whole, and tell me those dots still don't disapear every now and then?

[Dave_K.]

LUNardei, you are a brave person to site such examples. I seriously hope no trolls come in and derail this thread, as I understand these are just silly examples.

To delve deeper into MIB, that speaker at my work conjectured that the brain works in a batch style process, especially when overloaded with visual stimuli, to the point of "smoothing" out a scene to maintain continuity. I see this similarly to the effect of the brain filling in the "blind spot" where the retinal nerve attaches to the back of the eye. Working on this premis, you could argue that a larger buffer size in the brain could allow for less MIB in certain individuals. Just a thought.

[Plasmo]

RACIST!

[LUNardei]

RACIST!

Bad guy, you never understand my feelings

@ Dave: Thanks for understanding that, really. That thought is very interesting (mind like a calculator, always good), but you still focus on individuals. Imho a larger buffer size in the brain could be a characteristic of not only individuals, but also certain kind of people (asian, for example). That's the point above all thoughts.

[Randorama]

I'd like to understand how Pinker's book is pertinent on the thread, honestly...

I wouldn't link directly some special "asiatic" characteristics to a phenomenon mentioned by Dave: " the brain works in a batch style process, especially when overloaded with visual stimuli, to the point of "smoothing" out a scene to maintain continuity". One possibility is that ideografic writing systems enforce a development of "bigger" processing power for visual stimuli, and thus an increased ability for complex. Not that this excludes an innate higher hand-eye coordination ability to intervene, which is pretty unproven to the best of my knowledge. Exaptation could be a rather critical aspect, for instance (Exaptation = an organ or physical function that is loses its originary use and is adapted to a new function. In this case, shmupping skills can exapted from more archaic hand-eye coordination skills).

I will try to find some material and (possibly) some readings on these aspects.

[Eps]

Christ almighty, I don't spend all day working on scientific research to come home and find other scientific research on the fucking forum.

Seriously, interesting post Dave. Just a couple of things re. what people have said in this thread:

- 'Nature' is, along with 'Science', the top scientific journal in the world. If your paper makes it to be published in Nature, it's a very important one.

- LUNardei: you can't really make assertions like this:

I think it's time to stop saying that we can do what they do IF xxx, it is false atm.

not because it might not be politically correct, but because it is not scientifically valid. You cannot state absolutely that what you're referring to is false, because it has not ever been conclusively shown to be false. For this to be the case, and be accepted as such by a professional experimental scientist (ie. me ) you would have to have a situation where a significantly large number of Western gamers were playing in identical situations to the Japanese gamers -- in practice, this would have to mean they were playing in Japanese arcades, putting in the same amount of time, and. 'training' in exactly the same way. Basically, every single other variable except for ethnicity would have to be equal, which at present is clearly not the case -- there aren't exactly hordes of Western gamers invading the arcades of Japan! Therefore, you do not have any hard evidence that supports your theory that the Japanese players' racial makeup is a significant factor in their shoot-em-up success.

[LUNardei]

I'm having hard times trying to explain myself in english at 2.20 PM. Anyway:

I'd like to understand how Pinker's book is pertinent on the thread, honestly...

Just re-read the sentence:
"The idea that practice can put us all on the same level is very politically correct but simply false (again, read this for clarifications)."
Yes, it's not directly related to MIB. It's just the beginning of my thoughts and theories.

I wouldn't link directly some special "asiatic" characteristics to a phenomenon mentioned by Dave:

It was an example. I think it's banal to accept that some physicl characteristics may vary not only in individuals but also in groups of individuals. Like asian or western people. That was stated non relevant about videogames, in the Skill thread, you know. That's simply not serious. They suffer less of MIB for example, we MUST consider that.

One possibility is that ideografic writing systems enforce a development of "bigger" processing power for visual stimuli, and thus an increased ability for complex.

Absolutely yes.

Not that this excludes an innate higher hand-eye coordination ability to intervene, which is pretty unproven to the best of my knowledge.

Unproven doesn't mean false.

Exaptation could be a rather critical aspect, for instance (Exaptation = an organ or physical function that is loses its originary use and is adapted to a new function. In this case, shmupping skills can exapted from more archaic hand-eye coordination skills).

Ok, just good thoughts. Seems you're going in my direction here. Uhm...

I will try to find some material and (possibly) some readings on these aspects.

Much appreciated. But now I don't know what do you want to prove. Are you the Rando of the Skill topic (method and practice can give WRs to everyone) or the one above (who can consider nature involved)?