What does this tell us about the heuristics the visual system relies on to perceive depth?
This is a pretty awesome effect! Our brain knows that faces are normally convex and not concave, therefor when it sees the side of the face that is inverted it makes it seems as if it is out-verted. When the image of the face pops out, it almost seems as if it is rotating in the opposite direction.
I was kind of shocked to see that happen! Heuristics are described as a mental shortcut, or rule of thumb.. For example, we know that faces are usually bowed outwards, so when we see this face turned around, our heuristics keep telling our brain that the face should be outward. Therefore, we see the faces as a normal face rather than caved in. Heuristics can be so strong, that no matter what happened I could not get the face to even look like it was caved in when it was straight on. I found that to be interesting as well. This also goes alone with relatability and nonaccidental features as well. Relatbility is the degree to which two line segments appear to be part of the same contour. So in all of those line pictures in the book, they have relatability when they look like they are connected, even though there may be something blocking that view from our eyes. Nonaccidental features, however, are features of an object that aren't dependent on the exact viewing position of the observer. For example, the different types of line junctions have different meaning. T junctions indicate the occlusion of one region by another whereas Y and arrow junctions indicate corners.
I also find this to be interesting! It is very hard to tell where the depth comes from. Depth cues that might be invoking this effect are shading and shadowing. We only see the "backwards" face as convex when all the light is shining directly on it. In fact, whenthe shadow is haft covering it, we percieve the "backwards" face still as concave. I think the bigger cue is stereopsis.
We see the "backwards" face as convex only when the face is directly forward and both our eyes are focused on it. This could trigger our heuristic mind to recognize the object now as a human face, something that we are all very used to. Then could the motion cause there to be differences/ disparities(binocular) between how each eye is percieving the face resulting in the creation of depth?
This video was bizarre! I was definitely not expecting to see another face, espcially one that looks like it's sticking out. This tells us about heuristics because there are cues our visual system relies on to make sense of what we're seeing. Because we know that faces are convex, our brain fixes the problem by making the face look convex and not concave. I also think that shading is involved. When the Chaplin face turns, the light hits each curve differently so when the orange face is just beginning to show, you can tell that it's concave because of the shading but when the face is more straight on, the shading makes it look like a real face. This shows that our heuristics are so strong that even when we know something isn't real, our brain makes it look like it is.
I thought this was almost creepy! Heuristics are mental shortcuts. The hollow part of the face is still the image of a face so our brain fills in the pieces. I think it has to do with the lighting and movement of the object. I think it is interesting how the brain plays tricks on our visual system.