Talk:McCollough effect

message: Moved to title with corrected spelling.
Old spelling is now a redirect.
Put in more accurate definition.
Listed major reference to Science article.
But could use more fleshing out.
Montalvo 05:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Can we hide the images by default?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.162.48 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few years, and they still don't seem to be hidden by default. I feel like that's a pretty important priority for something like this. Not that it matters if there's any specific policy about this, but I feel like causing someones perceptions of color to be altered without their knowledge is probably not a neutral stance to take. TheJonyMyster (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks about 6 years to me. Tend to agree. I seem to remember there was a little discussion about some other images, a while back, but for slightly different reasons.Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  I don't see the "lack of consent" as an issue on this particular page since 1) the page is about the effect, and 2) the section is titled "Producing the effect."  I think that is plenty of "notice".  It's far enough down the page that unless you have a huge screen or you have scaled your web browser way down, you won't be surprised by it if you navigate to the page.  Now, I suppose someone could put a rick-roll-type "surprise" link directly to the section of the article, but that's not a reason to say "This is why we can't have nice things." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it takes at least a few minutes to induce the effect, as the article says, it seems unlikely that one would trigger the effect for themselves accidentally even if the images are shown by default. Also, even when I tried it myself, spending a number of minutes on the images, I find that personally, even though the effect exists, it's so weak that it's hard for me to imagine it being “dangerous”, and it requires very specific visuals for it to even manifest itself. Is it actually stronger for other people? Travis Evans (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article says: "Each image should be gazed at by the subject for several seconds at a time, and the two images should be gazed at for a total of several minutes for the effect to become visible." Although it's unclear what constitutes "several", and there will probably be individual differences in susceptibility,but it;s hard to see how the effect can occur with out a very deliberate attempt on the part of the reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Title and visibility of image

message: According to this, Wikipedia articles should not be written like how-to's. Yet, this portion of the article is clearly written like one, even giving suggestions and example images to use in order to reproduce the effect yourself. It should probably be changed. --213.47.38.96 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Producing the effect

message: "One image should have verticle lines with a different color background and another with horizantal lines with another background color." Currently both images have horizontal lines. 68.49.1.207 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, can't believe I didn't catch that. Fixed. --Android Mouse 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, appears to be twice the frequency. I see that the editor who uploaded the test image was User:Urutseg, from an original by User:Lampak, but not sure of they are still around. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: "CR" is not defined.
2601:6:E80:A06:E567:4489:5893:DDDA (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  General - Acronyms 

message: McCollough's paper has sparked [...] McCulloch indicated [...]
...Could the article decide on one spelling instead of switching between them in one sentence?
The article says this:
::
But the abstract says this: "The repeated-test group showed a linear decrease of effect against the stated delays, reaching zero at 120 hr. In contrast, the time-elapse groups showed little decline up to 120 hr. Those groups retested at 120 hr showed declines due to prior testing. When 4 more groups totaling 40 college Ss were subsequently tested at intervals up to 2,040 hr, the effect remained at better than half strength."
2,040 hours is approx 2.8 months. So where did 3.5 months come from? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Years ago I had done an informal study of this effect, and I did make an observation that i haven't seen recorded anywhere, 
but I really think should be followed up on by someone researching this. 
Using the plain horizontal, or vertical lines (any induction color) as test images, I shut one eye. It takes a little bit of practice, 
but if you continue to stare at the lines, but then shift your minds focus to the eye that is closed, an interesting thing happens.
When observing horizontal lines, i noticed tiny pixelations (of varying intensity) that flowed in two directions, seemingly at the same time.
When you try to focus on the detail of it, your eyes lose fixation on the target image, making discerning detail somewhat difficult.  
I think I was able to make out 2 layers, when viewing vertical lines the  pixels could be seen flowing left, and on another layer, right.  
When not focused, it would just be a blend of pixels flowing in both directions.
When observing horizontal lines, the pixelations traveled vertically.  Whatever orientation of lines you were viewing, the opposite was visible.
I did not study line density in this case, but that would be a good follow-up to do so. 
To reiterate, when viewing vertical lines, 'pixels' would be seen travelling left and right, in 'rivers' or 'channels' of static.
When viewing horizontal lines, pixels could be seen traveling vertically, up and down.
I note that this would seem like it coincides with what we know about image recognition, where different neural nets are trained for different
features. (ie. detection of horizontal line, vs vertical) Possibly a similar mechanism is at work here? 
It really seemed to resemble the scanning a computer might do if it was looking for pixels on a screen.
Upon further investigation: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow_syndrome
The 'pixelations' i remarked upon, is definitely visual snow, but it seemed to be oriented in directions opposite to the lines observed. 
While there seems to be some research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigengrau  suggesting that it might be an eye condition. I don't think
that it would explain the line orientations. 
Realizing that you can manipulate the visual snow, could possibly be useful to those seeking a cure for this.
Which seems to me, that it would be caused by a hyperactivity in the visual processing, making the visual noise much more noticeable to those affected. Warren008 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side effect or mechanism (Visual Snow manipulation)