↓ Skip to main content

Free-Energy and Illusions: The Cornsweet Effect

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Free-Energy and Illusions: The Cornsweet Effect
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harriet Brown, Karl J. Friston

Abstract

In this paper, we review the nature of illusions using the free-energy formulation of Bayesian perception. We reiterate the notion that illusory percepts are, in fact, Bayes-optimal and represent the most likely explanation for ambiguous sensory input. This point is illustrated using perhaps the simplest of visual illusions; namely, the Cornsweet effect. By using plausible prior beliefs about the spatial gradients of illuminance and reflectance in visual scenes, we show that the Cornsweet effect emerges as a natural consequence of Bayes-optimal perception. Furthermore, we were able to simulate the appearance of secondary illusory percepts (Mach bands) as a function of stimulus contrast. The contrast-dependent emergence of the Cornsweet effect and subsequent appearance of Mach bands were simulated using a simple but plausible generative model. Because our generative model was inverted using a neurobiologically plausible scheme, we could use the inversion as a simulation of neuronal processing and implicit inference. Finally, we were able to verify the qualitative and quantitative predictions of this Bayes-optimal simulation psychophysically, using stimuli presented briefly to normal subjects at different contrast levels, in the context of a fixed alternative forced choice paradigm.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 185 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 29%
Researcher 36 19%
Student > Master 21 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 6%
Professor 11 6%
Other 40 21%
Unknown 18 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 28%
Neuroscience 25 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 13%
Computer Science 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 32 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2024.
All research outputs
#7,699,921
of 23,420,064 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,262
of 31,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,035
of 247,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#197
of 482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,420,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.