Regarding the 2ms perception thing

[DontTalkDT]

DT we’ve gone over this.

I already explained why this isn’t a big assumption. The tests isolates the V1 neurons specialized for changes in light in general. The information from the V1 neurons are then used in processing movement. If the V1 neurons can’t detect any changes then there is no processing of movements.

I already explained that that is getting what you have to prove backwards.

That is evidence that movement below 2ms is invisible.
That is not evidence that movement above 2ms is not invisible as well. However, that is what you need to proof. That your end is a low end. That lower speeds / timeframes won't produce the same effect.
It's like you can also move so fast that the photoreceptors in the eye don't see it, but that doesn't mean that moving that fast is the true low end, as the V1 might not pick up on it even if the photoreceptors do.

Edit: And your V1 sources also seem kinda disconnected from the FFT in general and the 2ms figure in particular. What you link appears to deal more with flicker induced motion, which is its own cup of tea.

 

[DontTalkDT]

There isn’t a problem with that at all. It’s not even an assumption. Every change in focus detected by the V1 neurons will be in the final image. Our brain just chooses to ignore things in our final image. For example, our nose and glasses are still being perceived, just constantly ignored in our view.

Saccadic Masking is a bad example because even if the eye still picks up input, it happens right before a Saccade even occurs, so most of our perception (except the V1 neurons) is already negated when the saccade happens. The speed of a saccade has nothing to do with the timeframe. [1]

If our brain choses to ignore things it's not in the final image. If the moving object is "ignored" in the way your brain ignores your nose when you are not focusing on it, then it is invisible.

That you can't see the blitz is not evidence that the signal was ignored at the V1 level. There is no evidence for that.

And I have no idea in which way you think the Sacchade thing is a counter to what I said. All you say still confirms the fact that the brain can and does edit out timeframes of hour vision that are much longer than 2ms and hence still works as evidence that processing factors need proper consideration.

You asked for a direct correlation, so I gave you one. My apologies for the confusion; I believed the sources were clear on this matter. Your "stupid" analogy resembles an indirect correlation, which I never intended to present when you inquired about the correlation FFT had with motion. Birds need to perceive rapidly changing visual fields; if things move too quickly, they won't see them approaching. It would be literally impossible for an animal with a low FFT to perceive fast-changing visual fields.

I agree that with too low FFT it would (probably) not be possible to react sufficiently quickly. But as I already expressed there is a difference between saying "If you have a FFT larger than 5ms you won't be able to see an object that flies past in 4ms." and "If you have a FFT of 4ms, you will be able to see an object that moves past in 5ms".
I can not cook a soup without water, but having water doesn't guarantee that I'm able to cook a soup.

By the way, the manner in which the source phrased their sentences is irrelevant. Yes, stating that "a fast sampling rate helps detect fast-moving objects" is akin to saying "our eyes help us see." The brain also plays a role in "seeing," in tandem with the eye, just as the V1 neurons aren't the sole neurons involved in the perception process. The phrasing is fine, it's a direct correlation.

The phrasing is not fine in the sense that it does not say that the FFT is the timeframe in which our brain will definitely perceive. You can not read more into it than that is one of multiple factors determining the situation.
Scientists don't play flowery formulation games. If they don't clearly say that the FFT is the value to be used then that's not what they mean.

Another suggestion, though:

(1) I’d just say that we find the height or width of the object and divide it by the timeframe (0.002s) to find the necessary initial speed for the entire body to evade perception entirely by jumping or moving sideways, respectively, and for movement durations longer than 0.002.

(2) To calculate feats where the character is outright perceived to have teleported. Total distance covered / timeframe (0.002s).

I don't understand how you land at suggestion 2.
Like 1 is an improvement. It still holds all the doubts I have about FFT, but at least fixes the distance issue.
But how do you reach the conclusion that in scenarios where the character seemingly teleported the same issue that leads us to 1 does not apply?

The experiments are designed to simply find the limit of sensitivity to changes in visual stimuli.

Under certain specific conditions. You can not deny that there are variables in play that determine where the limits lies, seeing how the articles explicitely state that the FFT is influenced by those.

They don’t literally have to look like real life scenarios as long as the value is accurate and can be used for various irl purposes.

But that it can be used for our IRL purposes is the whole question and the article doesn't mention that it can.

I don’t want to debate the inner workings of the experiment, tbh. Questioning the experimental methodology doesn’t refute the accuracy of the value in real life scenarios.

If the experimental setup uses variables different from the ones in real life it does. You don't get around debating how the variables of which we factually know that they change the FFT will influence the value in a real life blitzing scenario.

Look at a standing fan, for example, because that’s one of the best real life examples I can think of atm of constantly changing stimuli becoming imperceptible, which is the frequency of modulation of the blades around the 500Hz we’re debating.

Ehhhh... I mean, for one I don't think the fan supports your argument. And then, the fan is also influenced by those factors. See the holographic fan for example. Brightness and its changes is one of the variables we are looking at. And with the holographic fan you can see the flickering quite well in the areas where the fan blades are lit up to produce the holographic image.
On the other hand, where the fan isn't lit up, you can not see the fan blades.
That's one practical example to how those variables could influence FTE perception.

Aside from the fact that commercial displays are literally objects in real life. The functionality remains the same and is consistent with practical irl things like a standing fan or fans used for holographic projection.

Yes, displays are real life objects... know what else they are? Light sources. They are bright objects. Their average illumination intensity is presumably higher than, say, evening light or something. And we know average illumination intensity is a factor in what the FFT is.
So if the fight does not take place at a brightness equal to that of a computer monitor, does the FFT apply then or not? The study has no data on that and also doesn't attempt to answer such a question.

The rest of the guidelines I made are just as ambiguous as our own standards on FTE yet they still address all your concerns to a reasonable degree. Your only issue with them seems to be that the guidelines are no hyoerspecific on the margin of error FFT has under hyper specific conditions. If you have a problem with how vaguely my guidelines address your concerns, then the same level of scrutiny should be applied to the current FTE in general. This is why I will always love using the fan as an example. It just seems like a textbook application of FFT in real life as it obviously stays consistently within the 200-800Hz range (where the 500Hz came from) in most real life conditions. daytime or nighttime, as long as there is enough light in the area to see the fan clearly.

Feel free to apply the same scrutiny on the prior FTE standard.
Just remember that in doubt we go for low ends, so I'm not really sure where you think you can take the value by doubting the prior standards. Don't think you can get it any lower...

Your game isn't motion, its flicker induced motion. And I know that the flickers on those imgur scans aren't 2ms because our phone's or PC’s refresh rates aren't up to that level. I have a feeling you already know that tho.

That's why I repeatedly said that we pretend those are 2ms. Even if I could have made them below 2ms it would have missed the point as then you wouldn't have been able to see the flickers lol

So yeah, if the flicker is 2ms for all those stickmen will all become imperceptible.

The same logic applies to our brain. If transient changes in our visual field happen for more than 2 ms, then the things our eyes pick up wouldn't be processed by the V1 neurons, and the things we see would become imperceptible.

Yes, in other words, a FTE movement that is several body widths long could happen by moving 1 body width each 2ms.

No. A fan with 100 blades will indeed be invisible with a little more than 1 rotation a second. Nothing discredits the logic based only on the parameters you set in the OP. Imagine 100 blades taking up 1/6th the volume of a circle, can you imagine it? Yeah me neither.

Would look like a bicycle wheel, just with more spokes I would imagine? I can see a bicycle wheel when it's rotating slowly. Don't think adding more spokes gonna change that.

Yes. The size and volume of the blade do lessen the optical illusion that it's going faster than it's supposed to.

Yes. Thin fan blades are easily imperceptible. All of which go back to my point that smaller objects are harder to track in general, hence they are easy to lose sight of easily. So if those blades are thin and still clearly visible. It should be fine. Let's use your youtube video for instance. Lets assume those blades take up 1/16th of a circle. A single blade is already 0.002875s... There are two blades... Should i go on?

Alright, so you arrive at 0.002875s as the time in which the fan blade occupies the point we are look at, yes? (i.e. it's 1/22 / 16)
In that case, yes, please go on. Because you have to realize that as you go on that timeframe won't go down by adding more blades. Adding one more blade means each blade will occupy the spot for 0.002875s each time it passes through it and the time the spot is occupied per rotation will increase from 0.002875s to 0.00575.

And all of that is assuming a blade that is 1/16th of the circle wide. I'm fairly sure most are thicker.

But in general: What measure are we using? Your value here indicates that you use time in which the blade occupies the spot. Earlier you seemed to be used how long the timeframe between the switches of a blade occupying the spot and not occupying the spot are.

Yes. Thick fan blades that take up more of a circle need to be faster to surpass our visual perception. Here’s the thing… the spaces within the circles would probably become invisible instead of the blades since over half of the circle is solidified with the volume of fan blades. However I do still believe at enough speeds the fan blades will still blend into the background as long as there is any kind of space between them. For example: let’s assume blades take up 9/10 of a fan. 1/10th of the free space would immediately vanish if the fan moved at regular speed. However, if the fan was 21-13x faster than it normally is. Then the blades themselves should disappear.

Yes your point is cool but always remember that at enough speeds fan blades will always becomes imperceptible.

I am not sure why that would happen? Like, wouldn't that imply that the light coming from behind the fan is having some kind of priority when compared the light reflecting off of the fan into the eye?
I'm not really sure how to explain it well, but I would expect the scenario to be symmetric. Basically, from whichever object (background or fan) more light reaches the eye outweighs.

If 99% of the light that reaches the eye is from the fan and 1% comes through the gap, I would find it weird if the brain decides to ignore the light from the fan completely.

Yes more light enters the eye but the changes in light are less apparent the bigger the object is.

I... eh... what? Are you saying that FTE is easier for big objects? Probably not, but I don't get what this means.

 

[Therefir]

I agree with the thread as well. At the very least, the use of this timeframe should be heavily scrutinized as DMUA have expressed (not a fan of people using this timeframe for literally any blitzing feat).

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I already explained that that is getting what you have to prove backwards.

That is evidence that movement below 2ms is invisible.
That is not evidence that movement above 2ms is not invisible as well. However, that is what you need to proof. That your end is a low end. That lower speeds / timeframes won't produce the same effect.
It's like you can also move so fast that the photoreceptors in the eye don't see it, but that doesn't mean that moving that fast is the true low end, as the V1 might not pick up on it even if the photoreceptors do.

2ms is an average, speeds can fall anywhere within range so it can be higher or lower.

All feats don’t absolutely have to be within 2ms. They just have to maintain necessary (around subsonic+ for an average human). However for feats that are treated like teleportation, 2ms can be used as it represent the timeframe transient changes in visual field become imperceptible.

---

Moving so fast photoreceptors don’t see it is FTL. Definitely not what I want to accomplish here.

---

I... eh... what? Are you saying that FTE is easier for big objects? Probably not, but I don't get what this means.

No.

Big Objects need to move faster to become imperceptible since more light hits them. A 2m object needs to move 1000m/s and a 20m object needs to move 10,000m/s.

I’ll look at what’s above later.

 

[DontTalkDT]

2ms is an average, speeds can fall anywhere within range so it can be higher or lower.

I feel like you are missing the point. The point isn't whether it is a low or high end of the ranges in the paper, but that you need to show that anything FFT is a low-end for perception.
That a movement above FFT can't be invisible as well.

All feats don’t absolutely have to be within 2ms. They just have to maintain necessary (around subsonic+ for an average human). However for feats that are treated like teleportation, 2ms can be used as it represent the timeframe transient changes in visual field become imperceptible.

Well, as said in my last reply, I don't see by which reasoning you get that for teleportation-like stuff the same problem that leads to the subsonic+ thing doesn't happen as well.

Moving so fast photoreceptors don’t see it is FTL. Definitely not what I want to accomplish here.

I highly doubt that's the case. Those things are only so sensitive. As you move faster the amount of photons reflected off of you and reaching a certain photoreceptor decreases. Pretty sure at relativistic speed at latest it wouldn't pick you up anymore. (And then there is relativistic doppler effect)

But anyway, the point wasn't that in particular. The point was that there are many stages to perception in which something could end up invisible. Just because something doesn't end up invisible in the first two stages (photoreceptors and V1) it doesn't mean it doesn't do so later.

(And then there's my concerns with the entire V1 source)

No.

Big Objects need to move faster to become imperceptible since more light hits them. A 2m object needs to move 1000m/s and a 20m object needs to move 10,000m/s.

I assume the numbers are theoretical.

But yeah, generally size makes it harder to move imperceptible.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@Dalesean027 @DarkDragonMedeus
You two said you agreed but wished to wait for further debate. Some debate happened. Any updates?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I haven’t replied yet. Give me another day, I’m looking for more articles that correlate flicker fusion threshold to things in motion since you disagree with the one I showed you for some odd reason cuz that article mentioned it in the intro with intext citation that has nothing to do with the experiment itself. I have found one though. That links V1 neurons specific to big and fast moving objects (magnocellular pathway) to FFT.

Also I start next semester soon and I have stuff to do in College.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I haven’t replied yet. Give me another day

Not planning to close the thread, just looking for updates in opinions in case they need addressing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

While I understand where DarkGrath is coming from, I am still leaning towards what was said in the OP.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It assumes that the brain's behaviour between telling you that a colour changing screen is changing colour and processing movement is the same.
But that's a big assumption and not really supported by the study's experiments, which test nothing in regard to movement.

The purpose of the experiment is simply to find the speed at which our eyes can no longer detect changes.

There are other studies that use flicker fusion threshold to support the fact that it relates to high speed motion.

If our brain choses to ignore things it's not in the final image. If the moving object is "ignored" in the way your brain ignores your nose when you are not focusing on it, then it is invisible.

That you can't see the blitz is not evidence that the signal was ignored at the V1 level. There is no evidence for that.

I was talking about general perception. Everything detected by the V1 Neurons are in our final image, our brain ignores certain elements via distraction, not outright removal.

I agree that with too low FFT it would (probably) not be possible to react sufficiently quickly. But as I already expressed there is a difference between saying "If you have a FFT larger than 5ms you won't be able to see an object that flies past in 4ms." and "If you have a FFT of 4ms, you will be able to see an object that moves past in 5ms".
I can not cook a soup without water, but having water doesn't guarantee that I'm able to cook a soup.

Thats why I proposed guidelines be put in place to see what "Objects" qualify.

I have no problem improving those guidelines with you. However, you are seeking to remove the timeframe entirely, so we obviously can't do anything about the guidelines.

The phrasing is not fine in the sense that it does not say that the FFT is the timeframe in which our brain will definitely perceive. You can not read more into it than that is one of multiple factors determining the situation.
Scientists don't play flowery formulation games. If they don't clearly say that the FFT is the value to be used then that's not what they mean.

I disagree, but I will ignore it as it is not important to the discussion. It's merely a clashing view on what the interpretations of certain words are.

I don't understand how you land at suggestion 2.
Like 1 is an improvement. It still holds all the doubts I have about FFT, but at least fixes the distance issue.
But how do you reach the conclusion that in scenarios where the character seemingly teleported the same issue that leads us to 1 does not apply?

Ignore suggestion 2. This thread isn't the thread for that anyway.

Im glad you accepted suggestion 1. It makes sense anyway, after I thought about it.

Under certain specific conditions. You can not deny that there are variables in play that determine where the limits lies, seeing how the articles explicitely state that the FFT is influenced by those.

Yes, there are variables I have made that perfectly clear, but you keep mentioning them as though they significantly affect the range of 200Hz to 800Hz. Heck some of these variables were a person's sex. As though women can see better than men or something. Even the brightness doesn't affect the FFT range so much that we completely disregard it. Remember when you brought a flashing light from a camera as an example? The camera was INSANELY bright, yet we noticed it at 300Hz to 1000Hz... which is just not far off 800 Hz in this study with a way lower brightness. And so on...

Of course not everyone is the same, but everyone should fall within the range.

500Hz (2ms) is just an average.

---

Everyone... The following standing fan discussion is fun to talk about but shouldn't have anything to do with accepting the timeframe itself so feel free to read to get a better understanding of how to use the timeframe.

Alright, so you arrive at 0.002875s as the time in which the fan blade occupies the point we are look at, yes? (i.e. it's 1/22 / 16)
In that case, yes, please go on. Because you have to realize that as you go on that timeframe won't go down by adding more blades. Adding one more blade means each blade will occupy the spot for 0.002875s each time it passes through it and the time the spot is occupied per rotation will increase from 0.002875s to 0.00575.

And all of that is assuming a blade that is 1/16th of the circle wide. I'm fairly sure most are thicker.

But in general: What measure are we using? Your value here indicates that you use time in which the blade occupies the spot. Earlier you seemed to be used how long the timeframe between the switches of a blade occupying the spot and not occupying the spot are.

“Ignore suggestion 2” remember? This thread was never about how to calc feats anyway.

I am not sure why that would happen? Like, wouldn't that imply that the light coming from behind the fan is having some kind of priority when compared the light reflecting off of the fan into the eye?
I'm not really sure how to explain it well, but I would expect the scenario to be symmetric. Basically, from whichever object (background or fan) more light reaches the eye outweighs.

If 99% of the light that reaches the eye is from the fan and 1% comes through the gap, I would find it weird if the brain decides to ignore the light from the fan completely.

Well yeah… it’s just how it is intuitively. The transient changes simply switched from the moving fan blades to the moving gaps. So the gaps would disappear first making the fan appear solid before the fan itself probably disappears at a high enough speeds.

I honestly thought I’d have to say much concerning this.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I feel like you are missing the point. The point isn't whether it is a low or high end of the ranges in the paper, but that you need to show that anything FFT is a low-end for perception.
That a movement above FFT can't be invisible as well.

One of the defining variables the study kept at a minimum was an object with a single edge so that it will be very easy for other studies to replicate.

like a fan blade. The more complex the edges the higher the FFT so (2ms) is an unintentional lowball.

---

What else is there to talk about now? The correlation of FFT to motion right? Look at this study with me. It links FFT to V1 neurons (specifically the M neurons that represent speed and size of objects)

 

[Arnoldstone18]

BUMP!

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sorry for the delay. Have a project I wanna finish before the end of the month, so my time is a little lower than usual right now.

---

The purpose of the experiment is simply to find the speed at which our eyes can no longer detect changes.

There are other studies that use flicker fusion threshold to support the fact that it relates to high speed motion.

The changes being colour changes by flickering in particular.

And the other studies, by all I could find, do not confirm that this relates to high speed motion in a 1 on 1 fashion. Correct me if I missed anything, but I think none of the studies involve movement in anything close to such short timeframes.

I was talking about general perception. Everything detected by the V1 Neurons are in our final image, our brain ignores certain elements via distraction, not outright removal.

No? Like, Saccade movement you definitely can't see at all.

Also, for feat purposes, not seeing something and seeing something but being completely unaware of it (as is the case with our nose whenever we not focus on it) are basically impossible to differentiate. No realistic statement or feat would proof that it's not unawareness. Even for a statement like "He moved so fast that I was physically completely incapable of perceiving him" I would not assume that it's meant in a way that exclude the brain making you unaware of some part of your vision.

Thats why I proposed guidelines be put in place to see what "Objects" qualify.

I have no problem improving those guidelines with you. However, you are seeking to remove the timeframe entirely, so we obviously can't do anything about the guidelines.

The problem is that there is no improvement of the guidelines which fixes the issues I described.

Ignore suggestion 2. This thread isn't the thread for that anyway.

Ok.

Im glad you accepted suggestion 1. It makes sense anyway, after I thought about it.

To be clear: I accept that it fixes the one issue that was about (the one I made the gifs for). If we use that method, that part is not a counterargument anymore.
But all the other stuff still needs addressing for usage.

Yes, there are variables I have made that perfectly clear, but you keep mentioning them as though they significantly affect the range of 200Hz to 800Hz. Heck some of these variables were a person's sex. As though women can see better than men or something. Even the brightness doesn't affect the FFT range so much that we completely disregard it. Remember when you brought a flashing light from a camera as an example? The camera was INSANELY bright, yet we noticed it at 300Hz to 1000Hz... which is just not far off 800 Hz in this study with a way lower brightness. And so on...

Ehm... brightness is good. The brighter something is the easier it is to see it even if only visible for a short amount of time (the receptor cells in the retina are stimulated more by brighter light).
The case you need to worry about is for when the object you are looking at and the environment are about equally bright (as is the case in most real life situations) and then for different levels of the brightness of the environment.

Of course not everyone is the same, but everyone should fall within the range.

500Hz (2ms) is just an average.

An average of several people in very specific conditions, not an average of how all the variables would work out.

Like, you say the variables don't significantly affect the range, but is there evidence for that? For some, like the frequency of the modulation you have still to explain what that variable would even mean in terms of a blitzing feat.

“Ignore suggestion 2” remember? This thread was never about how to calc feats anyway.

That is neither a satisfying answer to the example case nor actually a reasonable stance.

This isn't about whether the timeframe works without any context, but this is whether it works for its purpose: Making calcs with it. Blitzing calcs specifically.
If the timeframe is approved, but turns out not useful / usable in calculations, then it is not actually approved. This isn't a debate about whether 2ms is the FFT of humans (under certain conditions), but whether the 2ms FFT is the value that is to be used for calcs.

And the reason we talked calcs is because we have an example and wish to confirm whether it is consistent with the proposal or not. If it isn't that's of relevance.

Well yeah… it’s just how it is intuitively. The transient changes simply switched from the moving fan blades to the moving gaps. So the gaps would disappear first making the fan appear solid before the fan itself probably disappears at a high enough speeds.

I honestly thought I’d have to say much concerning this.

That makes no sense to me. Like, I probably can't conclusively disprove it, but in my head that seems like saiyng that a solid disk spinning fast enough becomes invisible at some point.

One of the defining variables the study kept at a minimum was an object with a single edge so that it will be very easy for other studies to replicate.

like a fan blade. The more complex the edges the higher the FFT so (2ms) is an unintentional lowball.

It's a lowball for the FFT of a human looking at stuff with edges maybe.
But that FFT (any value of it and this in particular) is a lowball for percieving a moving object going fast is not said.

Like, 70 km/h is a low end for the speed of a nodern car, but that doesn't make it a low end for the speed with which your grandma drives. A low end of an upper limit is not a low end for the thing itself.

What else is there to talk about now? The correlation of FFT to motion right? Look at this study with me. It links FFT to V1 neurons (specifically the M neurons that represent speed and size of objects)

First, let me repeat again, V1 neurons reacting to something is not equivalent to perception. It's a prerequisite.

But for the paper: Does it relate FFT and V1? It measures things in the V1 area and mentions M and P neurons as relevant for FFT, but I have no idea whether the latter are in the former.
It also says

Logic also suggests that the temporal processing capacity and sensitivity of the Magnocellular (M) and Parvocellular (P) subcortical pathways must depend in part on the rapidity of neural recovery after visual stimulation.

Whatever that may mean for us exactly.
I also wonder about if the difference between spatial and temporal frequencies would have relevance.

 

[Damage3245]

I agree with the OP.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

First, let me repeat again, V1 neurons reacting to something is not equivalent to perception. It's a prerequisite.

Yeah but it’s the first prerequisite and without a prerequisite… there is no perception of change thus nothing is detected.

But for the paper: Does it relate FFT and V1? It measures things in the V1 area and mentions M and P neurons as relevant for FFT, but I have no idea whether the latter are in the former.

The magnocellular pathway (M) carries information about large, fast things (low spatial frequency, high temporal frequency) and is colorblind. The parvocellular pathway (P) carries information about small, slow, colorful things (high spatial frequency, low temporal frequency).

They’re both present in the V1 neurons. M pathways are selective to rapid transient changes needed for movement... (Cont’d below)

It's a lowball for the FFT of a human looking at stuff with edges maybe.
But that FFT (any value of it and this in particular) is a lowball for percieving a moving object going fast is not said.

… So that’s why FFT is used to detect the speed of how fast M neurons can bounce back in that study. Which makes sense logically because without that first stage… it will never reach subsequent complex stages required for perception and the object becomes imperceptible.

That study just wanted to correlate flicker fusion to the speed limit our neurons bounce back after detecting transient change (flickering lights, things in motion).

---

Also, for feat purposes, not seeing something and seeing something but being completely unaware of it (as is the case with our nose whenever we not focus on it) are basically impossible to differentiate. No realistic statement or feat would proof that it's not unawareness. Even for a statement like "He moved so fast that I was physically completely incapable of perceiving him" I would not assume that it's meant in a way that exclude the brain making you unaware of some part of your vision.

Huh? I don’t think it’s impossible to tell if someone is distracted or unaware of an object in their surroundings. 3-4 of the guidelines put together states that the observer must be very much aware/focusing on an object in the center of view before one considers using this timeframe reliably for perception blitzing. Only a weirdo uses peripheral vision to focus on something unless they’re trying to be badass. Obviously those won’t count.

The problem is that there is no improvement of the guidelines which fixes the issues I described

Then let’s improve the guidelines together. You okay with that? So stop using the ambiguity of the guidelines against the acceptance of the calc when our other standards are just as ambiguous .

Ehm... brightness is good. The brighter something is the easier it is to see it even if only visible for a short amount of time (the receptor cells in the retina are stimulated more by brighter light).
The case you need to worry about is for when the object you are looking at and the environment are about equally bright (as is the case in most real life situations) and then for different levels of the brightness of the environment.

Remember when I said the variables don’t significantly affect the average FFT and always fall within range? That’s why I don’t need to worry about that case you mentioned because the margin is not far off between averages. Also. I read up on a study where the FFT light source were nearly equal to ambient light (as in or almost the case in most real life situations; 5% difference) and it wasn’t far off from light sources with a 75% difference in brightness from ambient light (imagine a glowing man in the late evening).

That’s why it qualifies as long as they are clearly focusable. For objects that are difficult to focus on due to their luminance, the guidelines state that the object must be clearly visible and mustn’t be too bright or too dim to the point where they’re difficult to focus on in general. That should tackle this point. Hopefully you agree and fine tune the guidelines with me.

An average of several people in very specific conditions, not an average of how all the variables would work out.

Like, you say the variables don't significantly affect the range, but is there evidence for that? For some, like the frequency of the modulation you have still to explain what that variable would even mean in terms of a blitzing feat.

Yes, the more obvious ones like a person’s sex (unless you agree that a certain sex can see better lol) I do say are negligible. As long as the observer has good eyesight and as long as the object’s nature is easily viewable in detail to the observer with good eyes before the feat happens, other variables should not be significant and are most definitely within the 200Hz to 800Hz.

However, the only significant variable is frequency of modulation which is just how fast things change (that’s different for every person) and complexity of an object’s edges. that’s why scientists use an average in the first place and a lowball of one edge. Frequency of Modulation is between 200Hz to 800Hz. So in other words you just asked me again what Flickering lights have to do with motion feats, which I’ve addressed with logical reasoning backed with studies that correlate FFT to our limits of visual perception down to the fact that the Magnocellular pathway that deals with motion in the V1 neurons activate when dealing with the speed of flickering lights (these same neurons activate for motion because motion too is a set of transient changes like I explained earlier in the discussion). Any transient change in our visual perception is picked up by M pathway. If the transient changes are too high, the changes becomes imperceptible. The necessary speed required to cause that rapid change will make qualifying objects appear imperceptible. Are you at least understanding the logic?

---

That is neither a satisfying answer to the example case nor actually a reasonable stance.

This isn't about whether the timeframe works without any context, but this is whether it works for its purpose: Making calcs with it. Blitzing calcs specifically.
If the timeframe is approved, but turns out not useful / usable in calculations, then it is not actually approved. This isn't a debate about whether 2ms is the FFT of humans (under certain conditions), but whether the 2ms FFT is the value that is to be used for calcs.

And the reason we talked calcs is because we have an example and wish to confirm whether it is consistent with the proposal or not. If it isn't that's of relevance.

I will dedicate that on a latter post. It’s fun to talk about anyway. I just want the timeframe to be approved first.

That makes no sense to me. Like, I probably can't conclusively disprove it, but in my head that seems like saiyng that a solid disk spinning fast enough becomes invisible at some point.

L Imagination. No fan, not even industrial fan blades can ever be fast enough with blades that wide anyway. So it’s understandable why you can’t wrap your head around it.

Imagine the blades start out slowly. You can see that each blade is moving through the gap right? No matter how small that gap is.. always remember that it will always be moving blade and not a turning disk even though it appears as a turning disk at some point when the gaps become too fast to be perceived. So eventually, at a very high speed those blades too must be fast enough to become imperceptible.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

EASY TO UNDERSTAND SUMMARY OF MY ARGUMENTS (hopefully)​

Flicker Fusion threshold is the point at which a flickering light fuses to become a steady image. This happens when our brain can no longer distinguish any change happening. the limit of our visual system.

what does this have to do with motion?​

The part of the brain that distinguishes fast changes in general are known as the Mangnocellular pathway. These detect motion by detecting transient changes from notably sized objects and the information from them is sent to other parts of the brain. It is located in the V1 neurons which are the very first stage of any visual processing.

Examples of Transient change include flickering lights and moving objects. They are just anything that does anything in our view.

If the visual stimuli is too fast, too small, too bright, too dark, away from focus and/or illusive. The Magnocellular pathway will not detect shit. Right now all we care about is for a visual stimuli that is “too fast” while creating guidelines to separate that from objects that are too small, too bright, too dark, an illusion or not in focus.

The frequency of change of visual stimuli with an edge that our brain can’t detect is anywhere between 200hz to 800hz. There are many variables that affect people’s flicker fusion but assuming they still have good eye sight the variables do not significantly go above and below average.

A good real life example ​

Like DT said, videos are not exactly good evidence against my argument or for my argument but we have practical examples like a standing fan that most people possess. Infact since the blades are identical and more than one, it is perfect analogy.

When a standing fan goes invisible due to its speed it is because of this very reason I am talking about. Our brains (Magnocellular pathway) can not detect its rapid transient changes. The more fan blades there are the more the transient changes occur thus the higher the temporal frequency. DT’s argument accounts for the spatial frequency which is good. So if we can work together we can form a good basis on calculation.

 

[Nierre]

bump

 

[Passersby]

bump

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah but it’s the first prerequisite and without a prerequisite… there is no perception of change thus nothing is detected.

Which is, once again, not the things you need to proof.
You have a sufficient criteria, but not a necessary one. We look for necessary criteria.

They’re both present in the V1 neurons. M pathways are selective to rapid transient changes needed for movement... (Cont’d below)

I have no idea if that's accurate but I will believe you.

… So that’s why FFT is used to detect the speed of how fast M neurons can bounce back in that study. Which makes sense logically because without that first stage… it will never reach subsequent complex stages required for perception and the object becomes imperceptible.

That study just wanted to correlate flicker fusion to the speed limit our neurons bounce back after detecting transient change (flickering lights, things in motion).

That's nice and all, but ultimately doesn't solve the issue that this is a first step of a complex process. It's still not accounting for the process as a whole.

Huh? I don’t think it’s impossible to tell if someone is distracted or unaware of an object in their surroundings. 3-4 of the guidelines put together states that the observer must be very much aware/focusing on an object in the center of view before one considers using this timeframe reliably for perception blitzing. Only a weirdo uses peripheral vision to focus on something unless they’re trying to be badass. Obviously those won’t count.

Those won't solve the issue at all. You are assuming that focus can overrule your brain telling you something, which is generally not the case. It's like thinking that you can just will away an optical illusion.

While you may be able to see your nose when you focus on it, you are for instance incapable of perceiving your Saccade regardless of how much you focus.
If you brain wants you to ignore something you just have no choice. Focus or not.

So yeah, the guidelines you want are inadequate for addressing the issue, regardless of how formulated. The only guideline that would work is "the work stated that FTE movement specifically means movement below FFT or movement that makes the V1 not register it", which of course would never be fulfilled by any feat.

Then let’s improve the guidelines together. You okay with that? So stop using the ambiguity of the guidelines against the acceptance of the calc when our other standards are just as ambiguous .

There is no way to improve the guidelines to solve the issues.

It's like trying to improve the guidelines of astrology calcs to account for the true nature of dark matter. Unless there is some new scientific information extra guidelines don't fix the problems.

Remember when I said the variables don’t significantly affect the average FFT and always fall within range?

Remember when you proved that? Because I sure don't.

Also. I read up on a study where the FFT light source were nearly equal to ambient light (as in or almost the case in most real life situations; 5% difference) and it wasn’t far off from light sources with a 75% difference in brightness from ambient light (imagine a glowing man in the late evening).

And did that study support a flicker threshold anywhere close to 2ms and otherwise had similar conditions? And what was ambient light strength?
You really should link the study if you bring it up.

Yes, the more obvious ones like a person’s sex (unless you agree that a certain sex can see better lol) I do say are negligible.

Sex in particular is ok.

As long as the observer has good eyesight and as long as the object’s nature is easily viewable in detail to the observer with good eyes before the feat happens, other variables should not be significant and are most definitely within the 200Hz to 800Hz.

Speculation.

However, the only significant variable is frequency of modulation which is just how fast things change (that’s different for every person) and complexity of an object’s edges.

Speculation.

Frequency of Modulation is between 200Hz to 800Hz. So in other words you just asked me again what Flickering lights have to do with motion feats, which I’ve addressed with logical reasoning backed with studies that correlate FFT to our limits of visual perception down to the fact that the Magnocellular pathway that deals with motion in the V1 neurons activate when dealing with the speed of flickering lights (these same neurons activate for motion because motion too is a set of transient changes like I explained earlier in the discussion). Any transient change in our visual perception is picked up by M pathway. If the transient changes are too high, the changes becomes imperceptible. The necessary speed required to cause that rapid change will make qualifying objects appear imperceptible. Are you at least understanding the logic?

That's still a high end for FTE not a low end.

I will dedicate that on a latter post. It’s fun to talk about anyway. I just want the timeframe to be approved first.

If you don't address counterexamples the timeframe won't be approved.

L Imagination. No fan, not even industrial fan blades can ever be fast enough with blades that wide anyway. So it’s understandable why you can’t wrap your head around it.

Imagine the blades start out slowly. You can see that each blade is moving through the gap right? No matter how small that gap is.. always remember that it will always be moving blade and not a turning disk even though it appears as a turning disk at some point when the gaps become too fast to be perceived. So eventually, at a very high speed those blades too must be fast enough to become imperceptible.

Sounds like we might have two different things in mind when we talk about the gap, but I don't think this particular debate was overall relevant so I won't get further into it.

EASY TO UNDERSTAND SUMMARY OF MY ARGUMENTS (hopefully)​

Flicker Fusion threshold is the point at which a flickering light fuses to become a steady image. This happens when our brain can no longer distinguish any change happening. the limit of our visual system.

what does this have to do with motion?​

The part of the brain that distinguishes fast changes in general are known as the Mangnocellular pathway. These detect motion by detecting transient changes from notably sized objects and the information from them is sent to other parts of the brain. It is located in the V1 neurons which are the very first stage of any visual processing.

Examples of Transient change include flickering lights and moving objects. They are just anything that does anything in our view.

If the visual stimuli is too fast, too small, too bright, too dark, away from focus and/or illusive. The Magnocellular pathway will not detect shit. Right now all we care about is for a visual stimuli that is “too fast” while creating guidelines to separate that from objects that are too small, too bright, too dark, an illusion or not in focus.

The frequency of change of visual stimuli with an edge that our brain can’t detect is anywhere between 200hz to 800hz. There are many variables that affect people’s flicker fusion but assuming they still have good eye sight the variables do not significantly go above and below average.

A good real life example ​

Like DT said, videos are not exactly good evidence against my argument or for my argument but we have practical examples like a standing fan that most people possess. Infact since the blades are identical and more than one, it is perfect analogy.

When a standing fan goes invisible due to its speed it is because of this very reason I am talking about. Our brains (Magnocellular pathway) can not detect its rapid transient changes. The more fan blades there are the more the transient changes occur thus the higher the temporal frequency. DT’s argument accounts for the spatial frequency which is good. So if we can work together we can form a good basis on calculation.

I could repeat my counter-arguments from the OP since this seems the same line of reasoning that was already in the last thread I made this one to address.

But to point out the simplest problem: V1 neurons not detecting something makes it invisible. But we have no information on whether something detected by them might not be invisible as well under certain circumstances.
I.e. the reasoning is inherently about a high-end, not a minimum speed for FTE under usual conditions.

---

Anyway, this has currently 7 votes of approval and 1 vote against (as far as staff members are concerned). In other words, it has a very solid majority needed to pass it.

I will take one more look regarding that ambient light study and other fundamentally new information if they come up, but if there is no really significant new information that debunks existing arguments (or any fundamentally new arguments) I will just apply it at this point.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

This is isn’t going anywhere…

Barely anyone is reading or keeping up with the arguments. Otherwise they would’ve commented on the arguments and not the OP. Then there’s the fact that you have college stuff to worry about.

I am truly disappointed that this level of scrutiny is not applied to all matters pertaining to the general topic of FTE on this wiki and even when I have an answer for your concerns and questions, I am met with many responses that are not based on logical reasoning instead arbitrary reasonings like “I don’t think so” or “I don’t really think it’s this way”.

Now that I have gotten most of my frustrations out of the way. I will get to the important points in your post.

You gave me an ultimatum, so I will put all my focus on that.

---

If you don't address counterexamples, the timeframe won't be approved.

Your examples include a bullet, a magic sword, and a fan.

A bullet is not even visible because it’s within a gun and it’s a small object that’s hard to keep our focus on it in general. (Two of my guidelines broken so they don't qualify as examples that counter the use of the timeframe i believe.)

A standing fan qualifies and has been thoroughly addressed, and we have come to an agreement, or rather, you conceded, based on the fact that you are unable to disprove the logic. The larger the size = the higher the necessary speed is required to cause enough frequency of changes in a second for our brain to lose sight of. The higher the number of the fan blades = the lower the necessary speed is required to cause enough frequency of changes in a second for our brain to lose sight of.

You used a video of the magic sword when you specifically said and I quote: “I will say that while I will provide some videos in the following, since cameras with their shutter speed and videos with their FPS obviously screw with the observation, they are more for illustration purposes than to prove anything.”

The counter examples have been addressed, and we found a conducive use of the timeframe in the process which you said alleviated that part of your concerns.

Can the timeframe be approved now?

But to point out the simplest problem: V1 neurons not detecting something makes it invisible. But we have no information on whether something detected by them might not be invisible as well under certain circumstances.
I.e. the reasoning is inherently about a high-end, not a minimum speed for FTE under usual conditions.

You are essentially saying the brain might detect something that might (not?) be invisible under certain circumstances. Aside from the obvious brain damage in areas aside V1, lack of attention, and saccades, can you list any other circumstances in which the V1 neurons will detect something and the other neurons will remove it from the final image?

First of all, the main topic is perception blitzing speeds (a high tier feat) not Faster than eye movement (a low-tier feat that i literally told you i was getting to in part 2 of my series of crts). Visual Perception involves the eyes and the brain. 2ms is the timeframe for the brain, not the eye, so “FTE” is technically wrong to say. I thought you were aware of this and were just using “FTE” simply because it’s convenient, like it is for me, but it seems it’s causing unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. I told you in the previous thread that I would make a thread about being faster than eye movement (saccade) for a low end interpretation of FTE; Faster-than-eye movement. This was meant to be a multiple part series enhancing our loose standards with low and high ends for each and every speed blitzing scenarios in general (Today its a high end scenario, “faster than perception” if this gets approved, tomorrow i will do a low end “Faster than eye movement” scenarios).

2ms is a low end of a high end interpretation of “FTE” (the high end being the topic of discussion in the first place; “visual stimuli/object moving so fast that it appears invisible to human observers”). Looking into photoreceptors will give inflated results, so the brain’s neural capabilities are another low end of this high end FTE feat (moving faster than the brain’s ability to detect the speed of changes in the visual field). The V1 was chosen because, unlike other neurons with partial effect to the final image, without it we are literally blind in the sense that a final image will not exist (although there is a condition called blindsight that happens as a result no V1 and it’s more so about reaction than perception). The only reason these neurons suppress information collected by V1 is when the observer is literally distracted, focusing on something entirely different from the thing they are supposed to focus on (the feat), if the observer suffers from brain/neural damage (obviously), or if something moves faster than a saccade, which I will address in my next CRT (Feel free to let me know if there are other circumstances because the absence of info on any more circumstances aside from all that i have mentioned is not evidence that there are no more circumstances outside of those I mentioned otherwise, a fallacious argument would be made). The V1 uses Magnocellular cells for the detection of rapid and transient changes which can occur when things are in high speed motion. Scientists use Flicker fusion threshold to determine the minimum rapidity that the Magnocellular cells can no longer detect rapid changes in visual field over time. The 2ms timeframe is an average lowball within a low end interpretation of this high end topic as explained by @DarkGrath and I. And the guidelines were made in order to accommodate large margins of error caused by unconventional circumstances and abnormal vision so as to mitigate its abuse in calculations. The reason why 2ms (500hz) was used but not higher FFT timeframes like 20ms to 11ms (50Hz - 90Hz) is because this experiment incorporated a defined edge and I aim to use it as yet another necessary lowball to accommodate visual stimuli with multiple defined edges. For things without a defined edges 20ms to 11ms can be used as an estimate. The necessary speed of a human will be subsonic+ as you outlined. This level of scrutiny is, at the very least, on par with our Tier 1 standards, and you’re asking for even more than this? Wtf Don’tTalk?

---

@DarkGrath still wants to respond to the thread btw. She is an expert in this field and has been busy with college stuff so don’t close this thread. I also request for @LephyrTheRevanchist to be tagged to look at this too to give their opinion on both our arguments as she was in favor of DarkGrath and I’s view.

I will go ahead and make the part 2 FTE thread that I’ve been planning on making. (VSBW revision: Faster Than The Eye). So when it drops, your participation there would be much appreciated.

I hope I am able to answer all the important concerns you have. I know you have other personal concerns but do not lose sight that fan calculations are mostly estimations. I truly want this timeframe to be accepted because it further enhances our speed blitzing standards and I did my best to accommodate our conservative views on fan calcs while also aiming for objective precision.

edit: grammar correction.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

While I see some good points, I am kinda split now tbh, but I can wait for DarkGrath who might also elaborate.

 

[DarkGrath]

I've been asked to provide more input here.

The natural approach to providing input on a thread like this would be to quote each chunk of the points presented in previous posts and to respond to them individually. I'm not going to do this. To be frank, having read through this thread, there would be far too much to say if I did that - I don't want to write a post in the range of nearly 10'000 words, and nobody wants to read that post either. More importantly, I don't think a lot of this is necessary to respond to directly, but I will get to that. Instead, I will outline the current case in favour of keeping the standard, and explain why I don't believe anything brought up so far substantially rejects this standard.

Research conducted by Davis et al. into critical flicker fusion rates (cFFR) found that, when participants were exposed to a high-frequency flickering image with a distinct edge, the ability to detect changes in the image ceased at a threshold of around 200Hz (5ms) to 800Hz (1.25ms), with a median of 500Hz. The theory presented in the original thread is that, because this was a metric of how long it took for participants to perceive changes in an object, that this could reasonably be used for perception feats wherein an observed object moves between two places too quickly for the intermediary movement to be observed by a human. This inference tying this research to the changes of an object through motion is supported by Brown et al., who found a strong connection between metrics of flicker fusion thresholds and the speed of processing of the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) contributions to Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) responses, finding p values between < 0.0005 and < 0.002 for the magnocellular contribution depending on the conditions (which, for those not familiar with statistics, essentially means that the probability that the correlation between the variables occurred purely by chance is below 0.05% and 0.2% respectively - effectively not worth considering as an explanation). To put this horrifically verbose, jargon-loaded research simply; the Visual Evoked Potential refers to our physiological responses to temporal changes in a visual stimulus (in a sense, how our brain tangibly reacts when something we are perceiving changes), and it is one of the key metrics for understanding how our visual processing system perceives motion, particularly the magnocellular contribution (for further, more technical elaboration on the concept, I'd recommend Baiano & Zeppieri). The ultimately relevant conclusion of Brown et al. is that our flicker fusion threshold is directly linked to the system responsible for handling our perception of motion in visual stimuli. This is hardly a novel conclusion, though it is an appropriately recent study to compound the existing literature supporting it. The idea that flicker fusion thresholds are a valid determinant of the speed at which we perceive motion has been an accepted notion for many decades now, with even articles as far back as the 1980's already discussing this fact (as shown in articles like Brenton et al.). More recently, research by Thompson et al. into neurodivergent populations found that deficits in flicker fusion thresholds (and in the aforementioned magnocellular (M) system) were a key determinant of deficits in the processing speed of motion; to quote the study directly, "The prevalence, in early studies, of raised thresholds for motion coherence in neurodevelopmental profiles including ASD is suggestive of an early motion processing vulnerability, encapsulated in the dorsal stream hypothesis. Due to the strong afference of magnocellular inputs to the motion areas MT/V5+, a common conclusion was that there is a processing abnormality in the afferent Magnocellular (M) visual system.". You may notice the magnocellular system from Brown et al. being mentioned again, and it is certainly of importance; it is the key to the speed of motion processing, and as mentioned before, it is directly related to our subjective perception of changes in an object through the flicker fusion threshold.

So what does this leave us with? We have research identifying that subjective evaluations of the ability to perceive changes in a discrete object cease at 500Hz for the average person, with this being a consistent operationalisation of the flicker fusion threshold across the body of literature. We also have the fact that this aligns with visual evoked potentials (including the particular system involved in motion processing), a body of literature spanning decades suggesting that our flicker fusion thresholds and visual evoked potentials are the key factor underlying our perception of motion, and modern research verifying the notion that both physiological and subjective measures of flicker fusion threshold and visual processing speed are the determinant of our ability to perceive motion. Therefore, the original research tells us that the average person would cease to be capable of determining a change in a perceived visual stimuli by the 2ms threshold, and a great body of research verifies the idea that this is generalisable to changes caused by the motion of an object. Therefore, the average person would cease to be able to perceive the motion of an object if that motion occurs in a 2ms window, and we now have an evidence-based standard to use for calculating feats involving these lapses in perception. Despite the intense debate occurring on this thread so far, I honestly cannot find anything to suggest this is a particularly controversial aspect of the literature in psychology - it has certainly been questioned and investigated, but our speed of processing for a change in an object being aligned with our speed of processing for the movement of an object is not only an intuitive conclusion with an obvious line of logic, but one that decades worth of research has consistently supported.

Now, why did I write this instead of responding to the individual points made thus far? Because, frankly, I think a great deal of this debate has missed the forest for the trees. In all this discussion of hypotheticals, open questions, anecdotes, and unclear semantics, nothing brought up has actually refuted this body of research and the conclusions drawn from it. It's led to certain concerns, such as where the boundaries for these kinds of calculations should sit (which is a valid concern - the research does suggest that viewing conditions can contribute to variance in flicker fusion thresholds, so where we should draw the line on saying a particular viewing condition isn't good enough for the standard should be discussed). These kinds of skepticisms are not only important, but they are the life of scientific research; so much of what we know from science was caused by people asking the same kinds of questions that have been posed in this thread.

But the kinds of questions that could incite further research are not the same as the kinds of questions that refute the existing research by themselves. The fact of the matter remains that this is a standard based on a substantial body of empirical literature, and any alternative standard substituted for it would inevitably be based on far less. In fact, by world-wide applied standards for evidence credibility (i.e.: the evidence pyramid, for one), it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the case for the standard is objectively stronger than any alternative standard. We can't just not have an opinion - even rejecting all calcs on the basis of being "unquantifiable" would be an opinion in itself, one which would be less evidenced than the case presented here. If we're going to acknowledge these types of feats at all, we need to base our standards on the evidence, and this is exactly what we are doing now.

So evidently, no, I've not been convinced. To reject this standard isn't just to show reasonable scientific skepticism - it's to reject decades worth of research on the basis of personal reasoning. This standard is more than well-evidenced enough to remain on the wiki, and I wouldn't expect any other standard to have been given half the skepticism this one has.

 

[DMUA]

We can't just not have an opinion - even rejecting all calcs on the basis of being "unquantifiable" would be an opinion in itself, one which would be less evidenced than the case presented here. If we're going to acknowledge these types of feats at all, we need to base our standards on the evidence, and this is exactly what we are doing now.

Honestly I can't track much about the study itself, I just think this shouldn't apply to fictional feats because it is still incredibly specific

Afterimages or someone turning into a vague smear would still be detecting a change to some degree, and someone in the middle of the fight isn't going to make a distinction between "I don't know where he went because I couldn't clearly see where he moved" and "he moved so fast it was physically impossible to receive a stimuli through my eye, as they travelled within a timespan of .002 seconds and thus surpassed the flicker fusion threshold"

I guess it ultimately goes under the same category of E=MC^2 or atomic destruction values, where there's no feasible scenario where one would actually use it but you might as well write it down if it has a scientific basis

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Afterimages or someone turning into a vague smear would still be detecting a change to some degree, and someone in the middle of the fight isn't going to make a distinction between "I don't know where he went because I couldn't clearly see where he moved" and "he moved so fast it was physically impossible to receive a stimuli through my eye, as they travelled within a timespan of .002 seconds and thus surpassed the flicker fusion threshold"

First of all, Afterimages and smears are not the topic of discussion. It’s simply objects going “invisible” due to perception being blitzed.

• Afterimages is more so a supporting evidence than a definitive evidence that the brain can’t track movement.
• Smears are motion blurs and are neither supportive or diffinitive evidence. They are unacceptable, I can not stress that enough and you keep bringing it up. I am already making a CRT to address this.

Someone can express that they simply are unable to see the stimuli at all, this usually comes with supporting evidence in the form of absense of motion blurs in the drawing or if the drawing make it seem like the stimuli teleported. And it’s not limited to what the observers says, it can come in the form of a narration box too or writing.

Also you are using scientific language to make this seem more complicated. These scientific terms are merely a replacement for everyday words: “I didn’t see when he moved”, “when did she even move?”, “you can’t see him anymore until he stops moving”, etc.

“I couldn’t see clearly” does not qualify.

---

I guess it ultimately goes under the same category of E=MC^2 or atomic destruction values, where there's no feasible scenario where one would actually use it but you might as well write it down if it has a scientific basis

No. Idk about the atomic destruction value, cuz I’ve seen us use atomic and subatomic values. But E = MC^2 leads to infinite energy at speed of light. Yet we found an alternative for this.

Just like now that we use the brain instead of eye’s photoreceptors which would result to Relatavistic speeds. Too many measures were taken on top of that.

Point being you’re bringing up hyper extreme cases when this topic is nowhere near those cases even without the extra conservative measures put in place.

 

[DMUA]

Afterimages is more so a supporting evidence than a definitive evidence that the brain can’t track movement.

It's catagorically the opposite, you're still in fact seeing them move even if not entirely accurately. You even seemed fine with clarifying that as a standard earlier

Smears are motion blurs and are neither supportive or diffinitive evidence. They are unacceptable

So any instance of this should disqualify a calc, as them dispersing into a blur or flickering away would still be visual input. Figure it should be clear

No. Idk about the atomic destruction value, cuz I’ve seen us use atomic and subatomic values. But E = MC^2 leads to infinite energy at speed of light. Yet we found an alternative for this.

With a very direct statement of atomic destruction, and I don't even agree with the most popular example of it's use. E=MC^2 is just a mass times 299790000^2, it's certainly not infinite energy, but more prominently it's another thing that needs to be very explicit to be used

Point being you’re bringing up hyper extreme cases when this topic is nowhere near those cases even without the extra conservative measures put in place.

This does in fact bloat speed calcs far past they should be without being conservative, actually. I've seen more than one Subsonic feat turn into a Hypersonic one as a result. It's not quite proportional, and perhaps the better example would just be atomization or vaporization, but both still can make a feat be much higher than it should be if just thrown around.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It's catagorically the opposite, you're still in fact seeing them move even if not entirely accurately.

This is completely wrong. A positive afterimage does not imply such at all. Can you prove that’s the case?

Anyway like I said it’s not definitive proof like I implied earlier in this thread to you. Even the standards take i account the inconsistencies of afterimages in fiction.

So any instance of this should disqualify a calc, as them dispersing into a blur or flickering away would still be visual input. Figure it should be clear

Flickering away into invisibility is different from dispersing into a blur. You are not being clear. The former qualifies as the object is accelerating into invisibility and latter disqualifies the feat.

You seem to get the idea though but I fail to see why you’re against this.

With a very direct statement of atomic destruction, and I don't even agree with the most popular example of it's use. E=MC^2 is just a mass times 299790000^2, it's certainly not infinite energy, but more prominently it's another thing that needs to be very explicit to be used

Oh you mean literally using E=MC^2.

Anyway, the point was that we do use them when we should. I don’t see why this means we can’t use this when we should.

This does in fact bloat speed calcs far past they should be without being conservative, actually. I've seen more than one Subsonic feat turn into a Hypersonic one as a result. It's not quite proportional, and perhaps the better example would just be atomization or vaporization, but both still can make a feat be much higher than it should be if just thrown around.

At the end of the day it seems like you are rejecting this out of arbitrary reasoning.

The only reason why those qualifying feats (I’ll take your word for it that they do qualify since you have not shared the calcs with us) were subsonic in the first place were based on extremely loose and incorrect reasoning. Therefore your stance on subsonic being changed to a more accurate and precise figure you siding with the incorrect value simply because it’s a low value.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A standing fan qualifies and has been thoroughly addressed, and we have come to an agreement, or rather, you conceded, based on the fact that you are unable to disprove the logic. The larger the size = the higher the necessary speed is required to cause enough frequency of changes in a second for our brain to lose sight of. The higher the number of the fan blades = the lower the necessary speed is required to cause enough frequency of changes in a second for our brain to lose sight of.

You have not actually addressed it, as all these things considered it still results in timeframes longer than the FFT.
The fan can be viewed close up, i.e. the apparent size is sufficiently large.
And with 3 blades, 1 point on the border of the fan changes between blade and no blade 6 times per rotation (3 times to blade, 3 times to no blade). With 1300 to 2100 RPM, that equates to (1300 RPM/60s * 6 changes per rotation =) 130 changes per second to (2100 RPM / 60s * 6 changes per rotation = ) 210 changes per second. Or, in reverse, every 1/130th of a second to 1/210th of a second, does a change happen.
By the reasoning you're going for the timeframe between each change is a flicker. Yet both those values are above the 1/500th of a second threshold being proposed. As I see it you have given no proper explanation on why that is not a contradiction.

What I conceded (or rather just didn't care about debating) was the topic of whether or not a rotating disk with a tiny gap would eventually go invisible if it is really fast. That's not this one.

You used a video of the magic sword when you specifically said and I quote: “I will say that while I will provide some videos in the following, since cameras with their shutter speed and videos with their FPS obviously screw with the observation, they are more for illustration purposes than to prove anything.”

I had already meant to adress that, but perhaps I didn't put it clear enough. The entire purpose of the toy is that it is FTE when looked at in real life. If the illusion wouldn't work in reality the toy in itself would not work as intended.
It is a magic trick you are supposed to be able to show other people, not a camera trick.

It's good that you finally addressed it, but that is really no counter-argument here.

You are essentially saying the brain might detect something that might (not?) be invisible under certain circumstances. Aside from the obvious brain damage in areas aside V1, lack of attention, and saccades, can you list any other circumstances in which the V1 neurons will detect something and the other neurons will remove it from the final image?

I could probably look for more, which would be a bunch of work, but I see no reason to. One valid example is enough to show that in general the line of reasoning just doesn't hold.

Again, I don't need to prove you definitely wrong, you need to prove yourself right. We don't just assume that any non-falsifiable theory is correct.

First of all, the main topic is perception blitzing speeds (a high tier feat) not Faster than eye movement (a low-tier feat that i literally told you i was getting to in part 2 of my series of crts).

I'm just gonna say that this is a distinction that you mostly invented since I'm fairly sure FTE has been used to mean what you call perception blitzing, but yes, I I was always aware what we are talking about.

Visual Perception involves the eyes and the brain. 2ms is the timeframe for the brain, not the eye, so “FTE” is technically wrong to say.

I hope you're not trying to say that you mean to disregard the eye as factor in perception blitzing. 'cause if so, you are handling a case you will never be able to prove applies in fiction. No work of fiction would specify for you that it means "not seeing someone move but completely disregarding the capabilities of the eye and only consider the brain".
Like, I have for the most part not be talking much about the eye because some very restrictive guidelines could be set to account for its inability to move faster than a certain speed (i.e. the character must run straight to the character that is supposed to be blitzed to not leave the center of vision). However, there is really no way practical way to solve the problem of the limitations on its focus speed. (i.e. if a character charges at you faster than your eyes can refocus form far to close, that probably impacts things. Amongst others not focusing on something would impact the FFT, I'm fairly sure.)
Ultimately, you can not talk about outpacing vision without accounting for the limits of the eye's abilities.

I thought you were aware of this and were just using “FTE” simply because it’s convenient, like it is for me, but it seems it’s causing unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. I told you in the previous thread that I would make a thread about being faster than eye movement (saccade) for a low end interpretation of FTE; Faster-than-eye movement. This was meant to be a multiple part series enhancing our loose standards with low and high ends for each and every speed blitzing scenarios in general (Today its a high end scenario, “faster than perception” if this gets approved, tomorrow i will do a low end “Faster than eye movement” scenarios).

The Saccade I only brought up in the context that it proves that the brain can perfectly well make something invisible that reaches the V1. Blinking would be another example of that. I didn't ever suggest that people were actually moving specifically in the Saccade or while a character is blinking or an equally specific scenario.
Again, you need to prove that movement picked up by V1 would always end up in the image as a person sees it. We know that isn't always the case (Saccade and blinking are movement that reach V1 and are not in the final image a person sees), so you need to deliver additional proof that it would be the case specifically for blitzing scenarios. And that's something you have not done.

2ms is a low end of a high end interpretation of “FTE” (the high end being the topic of discussion in the first place; “visual stimuli/object moving so fast that it appears invisible to human observers”).

No, even for this case you have not proven that it is a low end for every reason I mentioned during the debate.

The only reason these neurons suppress information collected by V1 is when the observer is literally distracted, focusing on something entirely different from the thing they are supposed to focus on (the feat), if the observer suffers from brain/neural damage (obviously), or if something moves faster than a saccade, which I will address in my next CRT (Feel free to let me know if there are other circumstances because the absence of info on any more circumstances aside from all that i have mentioned is not evidence that there are no more circumstances outside of those I mentioned otherwise, a fallacious argument would be made).

The article you linked does not say what you claim. In fact, it can not say what you claim, as, again, even if you try to focus on a Saccade you can not see it. I.e. it's possible for the brain to filter something out of an image despite focus being given.

What you are doing seems to be a wrong logical inversion. That lack of sufficient focus can mean that part of the image is suppressed, does not imply that focus prevents part of the image being suppressed under all circumstances. In mathematical terms, "A implies B" does not imply "not A implies not B". The correct logical inversion says that "A implies B" implies "not B implies not A". I.e. the correct inverted statement you get is that if no part of the image is suppressed, the lack of focus can not have been above the threshold where image suppression happens.

The V1 uses Magnocellular cells for the detection of rapid and transient changes which can occur when things are in high speed motion. Scientists use Flicker fusion threshold to determine the minimum rapidity that the Magnocellular cells can no longer detect rapid changes in visual field over time. The 2ms timeframe is an average lowball within a low end interpretation of this high end topic as explained by @DarkGrath and I.

Well, as said, the problem is that you have not proven that magnocellular cells picking it up necessarily leads to perception under all (relevant) conditons.

And the guidelines were made in order to accommodate large margins of error caused by unconventional circumstances and abnormal vision so as to mitigate its abuse in calculations. The reason why 2ms (500hz) was used but not higher FFT timeframes like 20ms to 11ms (50Hz - 90Hz) is because this experiment incorporated a defined edge and I aim to use it as yet another necessary lowball to accommodate visual stimuli with multiple defined edges. For things without a defined edges 20ms to 11ms can be used as an estimate. The necessary speed of a human will be subsonic+ as you outlined. This level of scrutiny is, at the very least, on par with our Tier 1 standards, and you’re asking for even more than this? Wtf Don’tTalk?

No, the standards are really not on par with Tier 1. Because tier 1 standards are based on proven mathematics. We don't guess that a mathematical statement we use as basis for Tier 1 is true.
You meanwhile just assume that certain factors make no big difference without the articles actually saying that.

The underlying scientific theory of a scientific standard needs to be scientifically true for the standard to be in place. That is the prerequisite. How we then equalize things that don't 100% match science (i.e. magical attacks, supersonic things that don't have sonci booms etc.) is its own question and done with more leeway. But our standards should always be designed such that evaluating a case that is scientific is at least approximated with a low end.

I also request for @LephyrTheRevanchist to be tagged to look at this too to give their opinion on both our arguments as she was in favor of DarkGrath and I’s view.

You could just ask them, but sure. @LephyrTheRevanchist your attention has been requested.

I've been asked to provide more input here.

The natural approach to providing input on a thread like this would be to quote each chunk of the points presented in previous posts and to respond to them individually. I'm not going to do this. To be frank, having read through this thread, there would be far too much to say if I did that - I don't want to write a post in the range of nearly 10'000 words, and nobody wants to read that post either. More importantly, I don't think a lot of this is necessary to respond to directly, but I will get to that. Instead, I will outline the current case in favour of keeping the standard, and explain why I don't believe anything brought up so far substantially rejects this standard.

Research conducted by Davis et al. into critical flicker fusion rates (cFFR) found that, when participants were exposed to a high-frequency flickering image with a distinct edge, the ability to detect changes in the image ceased at a threshold of around 200Hz (5ms) to 800Hz (1.25ms), with a median of 500Hz. The theory presented in the original thread is that, because this was a metric of how long it took for participants to perceive changes in an object, that this could reasonably be used for perception feats wherein an observed object moves between two places too quickly for the intermediary movement to be observed by a human. This inference tying this research to the changes of an object through motion is supported by Brown et al., who found a strong connection between metrics of flicker fusion thresholds and the speed of processing of the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) contributions to Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) responses, finding p values between < 0.0005 and < 0.002 for the magnocellular contribution depending on the conditions (which, for those not familiar with statistics, essentially means that the probability that the correlation between the variables occurred purely by chance is below 0.05% and 0.2% respectively - effectively not worth considering as an explanation). To put this horrifically verbose, jargon-loaded research simply; the Visual Evoked Potential refers to our physiological responses to temporal changes in a visual stimulus (in a sense, how our brain tangibly reacts when something we are perceiving changes), and it is one of the key metrics for understanding how our visual processing system perceives motion, particularly the magnocellular contribution (for further, more technical elaboration on the concept, I'd recommend Baiano & Zeppieri). The ultimately relevant conclusion of Brown et al. is that our flicker fusion threshold is directly linked to the system responsible for handling our perception of motion in visual stimuli.

I agree with all of that. What I challenge is the jump of "V1 stuff perceiving change is critical to see" to "V1 stuff perceiving some change equates to properly percieving the motion". Or, more generally, the jump from FFT being relevant to motion perception, to the conclusion that anything longer than the FFT is part of the final perception.

This is hardly a novel conclusion, though it is an appropriately recent study to compound the existing literature supporting it. The idea that flicker fusion thresholds are a valid determinant of the speed at which we perceive motion has been an accepted notion for many decades now, with even articles as far back as the 1980's already discussing this fact (as shown in articles like Brenton et al.).

I can only see parts of that article. In the parts I can see, I see no mention of FFT being usable in the way suggested by the standard. (especially considering what I mentioned above)

More recently, research by Thompson et al. into neurodivergent populations found that deficits in flicker fusion thresholds (and in the aforementioned magnocellular (M) system) were a key determinant of deficits in the processing speed of motion; to quote the study directly, "The prevalence, in early studies, of raised thresholds for motion coherence in neurodevelopmental profiles including ASD is suggestive of an early motion processing vulnerability, encapsulated in the dorsal stream hypothesis. Due to the strong afference of magnocellular inputs to the motion areas MT/V5+, a common conclusion was that there is a processing abnormality in the afferent Magnocellular (M) visual system.". You may notice the magnocellular system from Brown et al. being mentioned again, and it is certainly of importance; it is the key to the speed of motion processing, and as mentioned before, it is directly related to our subjective perception of changes in an object through the flicker fusion threshold.

Well, this is evidence that moving in a timeframe shorter than the FFT is enough to be FTE (or do perception blitzing if you prefer that term), but as I keep saying that's not what we are looking for. That provides you a sufficient criteria, but not a necessary one. Meaning: A high end.
We look for a low end, i.e. a necessary criteria. The question that needs to be answered is: What is the lowest speed at which we can be certain that going slower will not be FTE?

So what does this leave us with? We have research identifying that subjective evaluations of the ability to perceive changes in a discrete object cease at 500Hz for the average person, with this being a consistent operationalisation of the flicker fusion threshold across the body of literature. We also have the fact that this aligns with visual evoked potentials (including the particular system involved in motion processing), a body of literature spanning decades suggesting that our flicker fusion thresholds and visual evoked potentials are the key factor underlying our perception of motion, and modern research verifying the notion that both physiological and subjective measures of flicker fusion threshold and visual processing speed are the determinant of our ability to perceive motion. Therefore, the original research tells us that the average person would cease to be capable of determining a change in a perceived visual stimuli by the 2ms threshold, and a great body of research verifies the idea that this is generalisable to changes caused by the motion of an object. Therefore, the average person would cease to be able to perceive the motion of an object if that motion occurs in a 2ms window, and we now have an evidence-based standard to use for calculating feats involving these lapses in perception.

Well, again, this is just not what we are looking for. We are not looking for a criteria by which we know that moving that fast is FTE. We are looking for a criteria from which we know that moving slower isn't FTE.

Despite the intense debate occurring on this thread so far, I honestly cannot find anything to suggest this is a particularly controversial aspect of the literature in psychology - it has certainly been questioned and investigated, but our speed of processing for a change in an object being aligned with our speed of processing for the movement of an object is not only an intuitive conclusion with an obvious line of logic, but one that decades worth of research has consistently supported.

I have yet to see any study saying that there is a relation of it being aligned in the sense of the question I posed above. We don't need just any alignment, we need specifically one that says that it's
a) not just proportional, but specifically tied to the FFT.
b) not just a prequisit, or an important part, or related, but specifically that you can't go lower in speed without perception happening.

And what's intuitive is subjective.

Now, why did I write this instead of responding to the individual points made thus far? Because, frankly, I think a great deal of this debate has missed the forest for the trees. In all this discussion of hypotheticals, open questions, anecdotes, and unclear semantics, nothing brought up has actually refuted this body of research and the conclusions drawn from it. It's led to certain concerns, such as where the boundaries for these kinds of calculations should sit (which is a valid concern - the research does suggest that viewing conditions can contribute to variance in flicker fusion thresholds, so where we should draw the line on saying a particular viewing condition isn't good enough for the standard should be discussed). These kinds of skepticisms are not only important, but they are the life of scientific research; so much of what we know from science was caused by people asking the same kinds of questions that have been posed in this thread.

But the kinds of questions that could incite further research are not the same as the kinds of questions that refute the existing research by themselves. The fact of the matter remains that this is a standard based on a substantial body of empirical literature, and any alternative standard substituted for it would inevitably be based on far less.

Problem is that the questions do not need to refute the research. What the questions ask is whether the research is applicable to the scenario we wish to use it for. And without the answer to that being a provable "yes" the research is simultaneously true and unusable for our purposes.
I at no point said any part of the papers were wrong. It was always that I questioned whether their findings could be applied is the particular fashion suggested. And the papers at no point mentioned anything about this particular application.

In fact, by world-wide applied standards for evidence credibility (i.e.: the evidence pyramid, for one), it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the case for the standard is objectivelystronger than any alternative standard.
We can't just not have an opinion - even rejecting all calcs on the basis of being "unquantifiable" would be an opinion in itself, one which would be less evidenced than the case presented here. If we're going to acknowledge these types of feats at all, we need to base our standards on the evidence, and this is exactly what we are doing now.

Admitting that we just do not know enough to properly quantify it isn't not taking a position. There are lots of feats we can not quantify. Saying that a badly reasoned overestimation is better than acknowledging that we do not know a proper low end is just unscientific. If you want to invoke scientific principles, then I may as well bring up the null hypothesis: No relation is assumed until proven otherwise. There are many relations you brought up for which the articles have proven otherwise, but the one we care about is not among them. Basically, you make the mistake of assuming that evidence to a related but different thing is proper evidence for this thing.

We already had a way we deal with these feats: Acknowledge that we do not know in detail and rank it as Subsonic, as it's pretty evident from real-life examples that they ought to be at least that fast (There are people on skis that go subsonic). That's why the Subsonic tier is also called "Faster than the Eye".
We do not rank it as such because we think it's the true value or even a good approximation. We do rank it as such, because it's the only value of which we know that it is not too high.
That's just how we deal with things we can not properly quantify. Disregard the parts we are not certain about and low end by using the parts we are certain about. Magical explosion? We can't quantify magic, but we can quantify the explosion. So we quantify the explosion bit as a low end and disregard consideration about how efficient magical energy conversion is.
Character has an impressive feat that can't be calculated? Rank them by their next best feat.

So evidently, no, I've not been convinced. To reject this standard isn't just to show reasonable scientific skepticism - it's to reject decades worth of research on the basis of personal reasoning. This standard is more than well-evidenced enough to remain on the wiki, and I wouldn't expect any other standard to have been given half the skepticism this one has.

The decades of research were not on this particular topic, otherwise we wouldn't have the debate. If there were an article about exactly the question of how fast something needs to move to not be perceived, I would gladly take what it suggests. But we have just flickers.

---

I generally also agree with DMUA that it takes casual statements or depictions and assumes that they are made with a scientific precision, which I think would realistically not be meant.



In any case, what was brought up ultimately ran into the existing counter-arguments. In my entire reply I ultimately just reformulated the existing arguments.
I won't close the thread or end the debate for now, but as I said I will remove the standard for the time being by majority agreement. As it stands, it needs to be rewritten to the degree that any calc based on it would need to be redone even by Arnoldstone18's current suggestion anyway. So we do us no favour by keeping it for longer.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Lol,

Crazy how you replied as soon as I posted part 2

VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: SPEED BLITZING (PART II; FASTER THAN THE EYE)

This is a continuation of these two threads. As we all know. There are different types of speed blitzing feats in fiction. I will be dedicating 3 threads to discuss three types: Perception blitzing, Faster than Eye can Track, Reaction Blitzing. I see these are the most common types that appear...

vsbattles.com

 

[DontTalkDT]

Lol,

Crazy how you replied as soon as I posted part 2

VSBATTLE WIKI REVISION: SPEED BLITZING (PART II; FASTER THAN THE EYE)

This is a continuation of these two threads. As we all know. There are different types of speed blitzing feats in fiction. I will be dedicating 3 threads to discuss three types: Perception blitzing, Faster than Eye can Track, Reaction Blitzing. I see these are the most common types that appear...

vsbattles.com

Well, I didn't even know.
But do you really think it's wise to make a second thread before the first is concluded? Unless you want to take it as concluded at this point.
Wouldn't this outcome affect the next outcome? Like, by nature, that next thread can't produce results higher than what is decided here. Because, obviously if you are perception blitzing you are at least FTE already.
So as long as the situation here doesn't change the other thread probably doesn't work.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Well, I didn't even know.
But do you really think it's wise to make a second thread before the first is concluded? Unless you want to take it as concluded at this point.
Wouldn't this outcome affect the next outcome? Like, by nature, that next thread can't produce results higher than what is decided here. So as long as the situation here doesn't change the other thread probably doesn't work.

No no, I intended to do a multiple part series to address the most common types of speed blitzing speeds

Speed blitzing:

• Perception speed (this one)
• Eye movement speed (the one i just posted)
• Reaction speed (DarkGrath and I are working on that one later)

So that we have diverse options, because a lot of calcs just slap on values on the page for anything.

 

[DontTalkDT]

No no, I intended to do a multiple part series to address the most common types of speed blitzing speeds

Speed blitzing:

• Perception speed (this one)
• Eye movement speed (the one i just posted)
• Reaction speed (DarkGrath and I are working on that one later)

So that we have diverse options, because a lot of calcs just slap on values on the page for anything.

I get that. But, well, as said, be aware of the fact that any FTE value you could potentially get will be ignored if it is above what we decide to use as standard for the perception blitzing value. Because perception blitzing is sufficient to be FTE in any context.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

No worries, the FTE is a formula, and the reaction time value should be lower.

Alright, ill check out what you thought about what I said earlier.

 

[DontTalkDT]

No worries, the FTE is a formula, and the reaction time value should be lower.

Alright, ill check out what you thought about what I said earlier.

Btw. do I understand your new thread correctly that you do not plan to debate further here?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Btw. do I understand your new thread correctly that you do not plan to debate further here?

Oh I plan on debating further.

Drafting a reply rn.

The other thread doesn't affect this and vice versa

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I have been reading this thread since the start. Reason I haven't commented is lack of time, and the fact there's absolutely nothing I could add that wouldn't be redundant or straight addressed better by Grath (with whom I agree way more here).

 

[Arnoldstone18]

The fan can be viewed close up, i.e. the apparent size is sufficiently large.
And with 3 blades, 1 point on the border of the fan changes between blade and no blade 6 times per rotation (3 times to blade, 3 times to no blade). With 1300 to 2100 RPM, that equates to (1300 RPM/60s * 6 changes per rotation =) 130 changes per second to (2100 RPM / 60s * 6 changes per rotation = ) 210 changes per second. Or, in reverse, every 1/130th of a second to 1/210th of a second, does a change happen.
By the reasoning you're going for the timeframe between each change is a flicker. Yet both those values are above the 1/500th of a second threshold being proposed. As I see it you have given no proper explanation on why that is not a contradiction.

Spatial frequency wasn't factored into this like it was the first time you mentioned this, was it? Unless you intend to paint a picture of a fan where the space between blades is the same size as the width of the blades.(taking up 1/2 of a circle)

Fans that take up around half of a circle don't go completely invisible, iirc based on experience at least. I can very much tell the blades are there, just blurry. Y’know like a colored disk blending halfway into the background.

Don't forget that 1/500th of a second (0.002s) is only an average of a range between 1/200th (0.008s) of a second and 1/800th (0.001s) of a second. So if your counter examples go below 1/200th of a second then it's a notable contradiction. Otherwise you’d just get examples where some people can see and other don’t see it.

I had already meant to adress that, but perhaps I didn't put it clear enough. The entire purpose of the toy is that it is FTE when looked at in real life. If the illusion wouldn't work in reality the toy in itself would not work as intended.
It is a magic trick you are supposed to be able to show other people, not a camera trick.

It's good that you finally addressed it, but that is really no counter-argument here.

Yeah, but there’s no way of knowing how fast it truly goes. For all we know it could’ve been within the range where 1/500s came from (1/200s to 1/800s.). Or maybe even close to the range but too small for us to know what happens (nobody is looking that close unless they know the trick.)

The thumb moving down also contributes to the illusion that by tricking us into believing the sword is going in the direction of the thumb.

I could probably look for more, which would be a bunch of work, but I see no reason to. One valid example is enough to show that in general the line of reasoning just doesn't hold.

Again, I don't need to prove you definitely wrong, you need to prove yourself right. We don't just assume that any non-falsifiable theory is correct.

but why is the burden of proof on me? I thought you made the thread to show why the timeframe was nonsense.

I was always aware what we are talking about

Okay.

I hope you're not trying to say that you mean to disregard the eye as factor in perception blitzing

No. of course not lol.

I was just saying that escaping the photoreceptors are damn near impossible and would lead to an inflated values when the observers brain wouldn’t even detect what the eye catches at that point.

Again, you need to prove that movement picked up by V1 would always end up in the image as a person sees it. We know that isn't always the case (Saccade and blinking are movement that reach V1 and are not in the final image a person sees), so you need to deliver additional proof that it would be the case specifically for blitzing scenarios. And that's something you have not done.

Yes. Saccades are detected but the brain deletes all the final images during a saccade. hence why I stated that the eye must be fixated on the feat. So how does this help your point?

Blinking is an obvious no. Observer can’t even see until the eye open’s back up hence why I said the feat must happen when the object is in view. So how does this help your point?

The burden of proof isn’t on me anymore. It’s on you to show why information from V1 wouldn’t be shown aside from scenarios already addressed by me and my guidelines? If you can’t prove there’s an instance that utterly shuts down the use of the timeframe (i.e. examples that more guidelines wouldn’t just solve it) why do you still disagree? Why are you ready to accept a falsifiable method over a non-falsifiable one?

The article you linked does not say what you claim. In fact, it can not say what you claim, as, again, even if you try to focus on a Saccade you can not see it. I.e. it's possible for the brain to filter something out of an image despite focus being given.

What I linked has nothing to do with Saccades lol.

It’s about why distractions are detected but may not appear in final image

Well, as said, the problem is that you have not proven that magnocellular cells picking it up necessarily leads to perception under all (relevant) conditons.

I don’t need to be prove it does on all conditions if I and my guidelines never imply it does on all conditions in the first place. There are conditions that M cells picking something up won’t appear in the final images. Those are covered by my guidelines and those that aren’t will be covered. You have to prove that my guidelines have not, can not and will not account for those new conditions you may bring.

No, the standards are really not on par with Tier 1. Because tier 1 standards are based on proven mathematics. We don't guess that a mathematical statement we use as basis for Tier 1 is true.
You meanwhile just assume that certain factors make no big difference without the articles actually saying that.

The underlying scientific theory of a scientific standard needs to be scientifically true for the standard to be in place. That is the prerequisite. How we then equalize things that don't 100% match science (i.e. magical attacks, supersonic things that don't have sonci booms etc.) is its own question and done with more leeway. But our standards should always be designed such that evaluating a case that is scientific is at least approximated with a low end.

Smh. I strongly take offense to this but I will not comment any further about the mathematical theories we use for Tier 1 scaling. It’ll derail the thread.

---

Will focus on your replies to DarkGrath later so that she can follow the thread.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I will get to replying to all of that in detail, but before I do I would ask you to do something.
Grab some perception blitzing scene, preferably one from some non-animated media (manga, comics, novels), that follows all the guidelines.

The ability to detect flicker fusion is dependent on: (1) frequency of the modulation, (2) the amplitude of the modulation, (3) the average illumination intensity, (4) the position on the retina at which the stimulus occurs, (5) the wavelength or colour of the LED, (6) the intensity of ambient light [3,5,6] or (7) the viewing distance and (8) size of the stimulus [7]. Moreover, there are also internal factors of individuals that can affect CFF measures: age, sex, personality traits, fatigue, circadian variation in brain activity [4] and cognitive functions like visual integration, visuomotor skills and decision-making processes [3]. The performance of CFF in humans and predators alike is dependent on these factors. Umeton et al. also describe preys’ features like a pattern or even the way they move as relevant in perceiving the flicker fusion effect [2].

We were talking about these before as factors that can impact the FFT already and, as a reminder, one of my arguments is that some of these are pretty difficult to even translate to a perception blitzing context or, if they can be identified, how they are quite different to the parameters in the studies. (e.g. amplitude of modulation would basically be 0?)
I would ask you to take the scene of your choice and identify the actual value for each one of the mentioned parameters (or a range of values in which you know it will be). And then I would like you to source some error bound, on how much using the value (or any one from the range of values) you identified as opposed to the one in the study could at most lower the result from a perception blitzing calc of that feat.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I will get to replying to all of that in detail, but before I do I would ask you to do something.
Grab some perception blitzing scene, preferably one from some non-animated media (manga, comics, novels), that follows all the guidelines.

honestly I don’t want us to go back and forth anymore since that never works out, I’ll leave that to DarkGrath, and I’d rather do this since it’s something new for me.