Feudamonia t1_j8f91jx wrote
Reply to comment by Chris-1235 in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
It's not completely different. We don't see everything around us ever.
The use of invisible accurately describes our inability to see things the brain decides aren't important.
runawaycluetrain t1_j8fo22i wrote
The appropriate word that should have been used is “imperceptible”, not “invisible”.
Feudamonia t1_j8fqqti wrote
I agree that imperceptible would have been a better choice.
bkydx t1_j8jlim6 wrote
Invisible is the correct term and just means "not perceptible by vision".
Your Amygdala is perceiving the "fear" and aware of the visual stimulus and receiving and relaying information even if your conscious is not aware and the image is not being processed by your visual cortex, so technically imperceptible would be incorrect unless you specify imperceptible by vision which is literally the scientific meaning of "Invisible"
Feudamonia t1_j8jm3xi wrote
Great answer!
EllieBelly_24 t1_j8q4s4e wrote
But it is perceptable by vision, that's how your amygdala knows to be afraid of it. Maybe something else kicks in afterwards if it's around long enough, not sure, but you'd definitely "see" it, just not consciously
bkydx t1_j8jfm2w wrote
Invisible is the correct term and just means "not perceptible by vision"
Your Amygdala is perceiving the "fear" and aware of the visual stimulus even if your conscious is not aware.
runawaycluetrain t1_j8js05r wrote
Invisible means not in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
This concerns physics, not psychology or neurology.
thissexypoptart t1_j8fetkj wrote
Sure that is true, but “invisible to the eye” is the phrase used here. No, the faces are detected by your eye. Photons hit your retina, engage the signaling cascade leading to your optic nerve firing. Same as any other visual stimulus that results in photons hitting your rods and cones. This would be impossible if the title’s phrasing were correct.
“Invisible to conscious visual processing” would be more accurate. It’s what happens after the signal is passed from your retina to your brain where the invisibility comes in.
Edit: for the record, the authors of the study titled it “Rapid processing of invisible fearful faces in the human amygdala”. So “go complain to the authors of the scientific article” is a pretty silly comment. It’s OP that added “to the eye” to that title.
Feudamonia t1_j8ffe30 wrote
>more accurate
Yes but it's a distinction that isn't necessary. We already know the person has a visible face so by saying invisible the author is accurately and efficiently describing what's happening. That's entirely appropriate communication.
thissexypoptart t1_j8fiof7 wrote
It is necessary. We need to be precise with our language in science. Especially in studies like this, where what is perceivable at which level of processing is the major aspect being explored.
To say a face is just “invisible” would be vague but arguably appropriate since conscious sight involves your brain determining what is actively perceived and what’s processed in the background of consciousness. But “visible to the eye” is different concept altogether. It’s not just vague, but actually false for the headline to describe things that way.
It could just be a case of poorly written headlines choosing concision over accuracy, but imo that’s shouldn’t be acceptable in science journalism when it’s so core to the point being reported on. It’s a pedantic point but this is r/science. Headlines shouldn’t have falsehoods in them.
[deleted] t1_j8fqked wrote
[removed]
bkydx t1_j8jh3yc wrote
Invisible is to correct scientific term for an object that is seen and not perceived.
"Not perceptible by vision"
People trying to use what they think it means.
Probably related to Fantasy writing and super heroes and bending light and making things see-through and incorrectly arguing over pedantic details.
The Faces are Invisible and this is not a poor description.
[deleted] t1_j8fq9hd wrote
[deleted]
relbean t1_j8g0yp5 wrote
I know this is probably a troll comment, but nothing about u/thissexypoptart ’s comments were wrathful, and everything they said was correct.
[deleted] t1_j8fvhpu wrote
[removed]
Chris-1235 t1_j8ffbbf wrote
Why would you muddle things like that? Not visible to the eye and not perceptible by the mind are the same only for people who know nothing about how the brain works.
Even if you ignore the subconscious, "Invisible to me", "difficult to see", or "invisible when I look this way" are more appropriate, when you talk about things you fail to perceive, but that are there for others to see, e.g. when zooming in or playing sonethin in slow motion.
Feudamonia t1_j8fg6hi wrote
It's not muddled at all. Communication is about effective and efficient conveying of data. There are two possible interpretations of the title - either the person had an invisible face or their face isn't perceived visually. Which would you think is logical?
Chris-1235 t1_j8firvr wrote
I thought that the title was nonsensical, as was their use of the term, because the face was in fact perceived visually, but not by the conscious mind.
walksineternity t1_j8flt47 wrote
Fully agreed with you on this, the title makes no sense. Invisible means something very specific. Maybe the word should have been unnoticeable?
Feudamonia t1_j8fjw61 wrote
We can argue the philosophy of when something becomes perceived or just received by neurons but that's a different conversation. The title posed no comprehension issues for me because the only alternative meaning was illogical (because no one has an invisible face).
relbean t1_j8g1yhs wrote
Just because the alternative meaning is illogical in your mind doesn’t mean the description is accurate. Accuracy is important, why wouldn’t you want to be as precise as possible? Especially when discussing scientific topics.
To me “invisible to the eye” means that the absence of sensory perception happens in the end organ of vision, not the areas of the brain that control consciousness. In reality, the information is visible to the eye. It’s an inaccurate title.
Feudamonia t1_j8g6m20 wrote
>Just because the alternative meaning is illogical in your mind doesn’t mean the description is accurate.
Actually it does. Logic or being logical isn't subjective. We know for a fact that people do not have invisible faces.
Invisible to the eye means the quality of being invisible is determined by the eye rather than it being a physical quality of the object the phrase is referencing.
The title is accurate enough to convey its meaning.
relbean t1_j8g9a3x wrote
It is not accurate enough to convey its meaning because its meaning is that the eye did not perceive the stimulus when in reality the eye did perceive the stimulus and the cerebral cortex did not perceive the stimulus. Those are two separate parts of anatomy and in a scientific discussion that distinction matters a great deal.
Feudamonia t1_j8geu9q wrote
>the eye did not perceive the stimulus when in reality the eye did perceive the stimulus and the cerebral cortex did not perceive the stimulus
You're getting confused between sensation and perception. Sensation occurs when sensory receptors detect sensory stimuli. Perception involves the organization, interpretation, and conscious experience of those sensations.
bkydx t1_j8jkmfj wrote
According to science if something is in sight but your brain is not consciously perceiving then it invisible is the correct term.
The people that are arguing against you probably have more knowledge about invisible super heroes then any sort of science.
Sprite_is_Better t1_j8h1bfb wrote
So like the cocktail party effect, but for visual sensory
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments