Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thissexypoptart t1_j8fetkj wrote

Reply to comment by Feudamonia 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

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.

22

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.

−5

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.

13

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.

1