Understanding Vision Inversion: The Myth and Meaning Behind It

  • Medical
  • Thread starter madness
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Vision
In summary, the experiment where people wear vision-inverting glasses and their vision eventually flips is a myth, as proven by a study that showed no alteration in the retinotopy of early visual cortical areas after six to ten days of wearing the glasses. The brain "inverts" the image on the retina so that we perceive the outside world as "right side up," but this is just a matter of convention and body orientation. There is no objective up or down, as proven by the fact that people at the North Pole feel just as normal as people at the South Pole.
  • #1
madness
815
70
I could have put this in the biology forum, but decided it has too strong a philosophical slant (as my questions always seem to). I recently read that the experiment where people who wore vision-inverting glasses having there vision eventually flip is a myth. This reminded me of a question I always had on the issue. What does it even mean for your vision to flip, and what does it mean when people say your brain inverts your vision from your eye? Inverts it relative to what? It seems to me that it is a meaningless question since there is no reference for up and down other than your experience of it. On the other hand, wearing inverting glasses causes the experience of having your vision flipped, but is this just relative to our auditory and proprioceptive cues?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
This has nothing to do with philosophy.
 
  • #3
Well since it is a question about subjective experience it kindof does...
 
  • #4
madness said:
Well since it is a question about subjective experience it kindof does...
Not for our rules.
 
  • #5
madness said:
what does it mean when people say your brain inverts your vision from your eye?

The lens of your eye produces an inverted image of the outside world on your retina, like the inverted image that you can project onto a sheet of paper using a magnifying glass. Your brain "inverts" your perception of this image so that you perceive the outside world as "right side up."
 
  • #6
jtbell said:
The lens of your eye produces an inverted image of the outside world on your retina, like the inverted image that you can project onto a sheet of paper using a magnifying glass. Your brain "inverts" your perception of this image so that you perceive the outside world as "right side up."

I don't think that's what madness's question was.

We label our world "right side up" because it's all we've ever known. But suppose our brains did not invert the image. We would still call what we see "right side up", since that new image would then be all we've ever known. So, why does the brain bother to invert the image?

Somehow I think we've had a thread or two on this before...
 
  • #7
I believe this is the study madness is referring to.

The myth of upright vision. A psychophysical and functional
imaging study of adaptation to inverting spectacles

Abstract. The adaptation to inverting prisms and mirror spectacles was studied in four subjects over periods of six to ten days. Subjects showed rapid adaptation of visuomotor functions, but did not report return of upright vision. The persistence of the transformed visual image was confirmed by the subjects' perception of shape from shading. No alteration of the retinotopy of early visual cortical areas was seen in the functional magnetic resonance images. These results are discussed in the context of previous claims of upright vision with inverting prisms and mirror spectacles.

http://wexler.free.fr/library/files...udy of adaptation to inverting spectacles.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Six to ten days? Are they kidding? I'd expect six to ten years for vision to invert in a fully formed adult if ever.

Calling it a "myth" after a ten day experiment is like declaring Bigfoot a myth after a hard two-hour stare into the woods. Even Bigfoot skeptics would say you haven't looked hard enough to rule it out.
 
  • #9
Antiphon said:
Six to ten days? Are they kidding? I'd expect six to ten years for vision to invert in a fully formed adult if ever.

Calling it a "myth" after a ten day experiment is like declaring Bigfoot a myth after a hard two-hour stare into the woods. Even Bigfoot skeptics would say you haven't looked hard enough to rule it out.
It should be sufficient to debunk it because the original and supporting claims all said six/seven days:

Stratton's (1897) claim that he saw the world in its canonical orientation on the sixth day with inverting prisms was followed by attempts to reproduce his findings in 1928 and 1952 (see Kottenhoff 1961; Gregory 1998b). A number of studies at Innsbruck University with upside-down inverting mirrors (Kohler 1964) also resulted in reports of upright vision after one week.

What's interesting to me is that my eyes adjusted to the large print at the pdf in the course of reading one paper such that when I came back to PF the print here looked microscopically tiny.
 
  • #11
lisab said:
I don't think that's what madness's question was.

We label our world "right side up" because it's all we've ever known. But suppose our brains did not invert the image. We would still call what we see "right side up", since that new image would then be all we've ever known. So, why does the brain bother to invert the image?

Somehow I think we've had a thread or two on this before...
Yes, we've had this discussion before.

The image is inverted because there really is an up and a down. It is more than a matter of convention, it is a matter of body orientation. Your forehead is above your eyes and your chin is below. If you don't flip the image, you'll see that reversed. It is similar to looking at yourself through two mirrors - you can adapt, but it never is actually correct.
 
  • #12
russ_watters said:
Yes, we've had this discussion before.

The image is inverted because there really is an up and a down. It is more than a matter of convention, it is a matter of body orientation. Your forehead is above your eyes and your chin is below. If you don't flip the image, you'll see that reversed. It is similar to looking at yourself through two mirrors - you can adapt, but it never is actually correct.
There's no objective up or down. People at the North Pole feel just as normal as people at the South Pole, despite the fact they're in 180 degree conflict about Up and Down. There is objective centripetal acceleration toward the center of the earth, but that direction is specific to exactly where you are on the earth, and different in all locations.

The problem created by inverting glasses is that they selectively take one sense and put it at odds with the other senses, as the Opening Poster suspected.
 
  • #13
zoobyshoe said:
There's no objective up or down.
Yes there is, "down" is the direction that gravity is pulling you and "up" is the opposite direction. That is an objective definition.

In addition when we're talking about bodies we do have measures of orientation that we can use to determine the "bottom" and "top" of a body even if it changes position i.e. I can still say that on my body my eyes are above my chin even if I am standing on my head.
 
  • #14
madness said:
What does it even mean for your vision to flip
It means that even when you are orientated with your inferior (anatomical bottom e.g. feet) pointing in the direction that gravity is pulling you and your superiod (anatomical top e.g. head) pointing in the opposite direction your vision disagrees by placing everything in reverse e.g. when looking at another human it seems that their inferior is pointing in the direction that your superior is.
madness said:
and what does it mean when people say your brain inverts your vision from your eye?
Exactly that, the brain takes the image the eye is seeing and flips it so that everything sensed at the top of your field of vision is perceived at the bottom.
madness said:
Inverts it relative to what?
Relative to your body. The images your brain perceives is inverted to the image your eye senses.
madness said:
It seems to me that it is a meaningless question since there is no reference for up and down other than your experience of it.
See my first comment replying to zoobyshoe.
madness said:
On the other hand, wearing inverting glasses causes the experience of having your vision flipped, but is this just relative to our auditory and proprioceptive cues?
I'll have to think about this more but even if you flip every sense you won't be flipping direction so relative to the outside world you will be dead wrong trying to place things e.g. if you hear a sound to your right you will percieve it to your left and therefore move the wrong way. Unless sense of direction gradually changes.
 
  • #15
"Exactly that, the brain takes the image the eye is seeing and flips it so that everything sensed at the top of your field of vision is perceived at the bottom."

I'm not sure this makes sense. You're brain has a retinotipic mapping of the retina, bit the orientation of the mapping on the surface of the cortex has no meaning. I'm not sure that the brain does flip the image at all. Your retina will have your feet at the top and your forehead at the bottom (so to speak), but when it gets to the brain it has no concept of where the forehead of feet actually were relative to the retina.
 
  • #16
Ryan_m_b said:
Yes there is, "down" is the direction that gravity is pulling you and "up" is the opposite direction. That is an objective definition.

In addition when we're talking about bodies we do have measures of orientation that we can use to determine the "bottom" and "top" of a body even if it changes position i.e. I can still say that on my body my eyes are above my chin even if I am standing on my head.

This is true for the physical world, but you need to consider only the information your brain has access to. As I said, the information entering the brain from the retina is simply a topographic map of light entering the retina. The brain can't tell which way is "really" up or down from this. The reason being that there is no up or down in this sense. This is why I'm led to believe that it is not true that your brain inverts your vision.
 
  • #17
Ryan_m_b said:
Yes there is, "down" is the direction that gravity is pulling you and "up" is the opposite direction. That is an objective definition.
Up and Down are determined at each spot on the Earth by the centripetal acceleration of gravity, yes. They are not a matter of body orientation as Russ said.

In addition when we're talking about bodies we do have measures of orientation that we can use to determine the "bottom" and "top" of a body even if it changes position i.e. I can still say that on my body my eyes are above my chin even if I am standing on my head.
These terms were created to be independent, when needed, of the centripetal acceleration of gravity, so that when speaking of the dorsal features of a fish, for example, they remain dorsal regardless of the orientation of the fish with respect to the earth. The dorsal aspects of a fish are with respect to the fish and will remain dorsal even in outer space. Your head remains superior to your feet even if you are upside down with respect to the Earth because the term "superior" is understood to be disconnected from gravity.

When, therefore. you substitute "above" for "superior" you make a mess of the terminology and end up saying nonsensical things like your eyes are still above your chin when you're standing on your head. They're not. They are superior to your chin, but below it. "Above" and "below" are relative to external references. "Superior" and "inferior" are not relative to external reference points. The whole point of creating that terminology was for it to be independent of external reference points.
 
  • #18
madness said:
This is true for the physical world, but you need to consider only the information your brain has access to. As I said, the information entering the brain from the retina is simply a topographic map of light entering the retina. The brain can't tell which way is "really" up or down from this. The reason being that there is no up or down in this sense. This is why I'm led to believe that it is not true that your brain inverts your vision.
The image projected on the retina is inverted from the external world. That's just a fact of optics. Whether or not the signals are re-inverted could be determined, I would have thought, by the orientation of the visual field maps in the brain. But, a quick google brought up this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17964252

which, as usual with the brain, shows it's quite complicated.

This sentence:

Cortical maps are arranged into clusters in which several maps have parallel eccentricity representations, while the angular representations within a cluster alternate in visual field sign.

suggests that some maps are inverted ("alternate in visual field sign") and some aren't, but I'm not sure what they mean by "visual field sign".

If you look at a map of touch sensation it's clear it's not a literal little human shaped homunculus as it's sometimes represented. Therefore, there is probably no absolute need for the maps of the visual field to be literally inverted to conform to the external world in order for us to be conscious of them the way we are.
 
  • #19
"Whether or not the signals are re-inverted could be determined, I would have thought, by the orientation of the visual field maps in the brain."

But you haven't explained what it would mean for the signals to be "re-inverted". Clearly, the physical orientation of the retinopic map on the cortex is unimportant - what matters is the pattern of wiring. In this sense, the only way it can be inverted or not is relative to other topographic maps like auditory and somatosensory. Therefore, your brain can't flip your vision relative to the world or to your retina.

I also think you may have misunderstood the study you cite. The visual cortex is made up of orientation selective cells which form a striate patterned structure on the back of the brain. In general neighbouring cells have neighbouring orientation selectivity, but there are sometimes also pinwheels and fractures in the map where the orientation preference changes discontinously. I think this is what your quote is referring to.

Edit: I'm actually not sure what that quote is referring to. Although what I wrote in the last paragraph is true, it might not be what they are talking about. However I'm pretty sure its talking about feature preferences within and not between maps.
 
  • #20
I googled and found there are cases of pathological inversion of vision:

INVERTED OR TILTED PERCEPTION DISORDER
Summary. Aim. In the context of the increasing number of reported cases of patients presenting tilt or reversal of vision anomaly (here reviewed), we call the attention to the work of Justo Gonzalo (1910-1986), scarcely known in the contemporary literature. His work deals with that anomaly, and with tactile and auditory inversion, in relation to what he called central and paracentral syndromes, interpreted from the functional model he developed. Development. Gonzalo makes reference to 25 patients with chronic tilted vision, some of them with almost inverted perception in visual, tactile and auditory systems, under minimum stimulus. The central syndrome is caused by unilateral lesion in the parieto-occipital cortex, equidistant from the visual, tactile and auditory projection areas, and is characterized by bilateral multisensory involvement, and by dynamic effects following physiological laws of nervous excitability. Thus, as the illumination of an object was diminishing, it was perceived progressively tilted, reduced, and losing form and colors, following a physiological order; however the image was corrected by increasing the illumination, or by facilitation through other sensory stimulus. The central syndrome is compared with the reviewed cases. Conclusions. This syndrome involves a deficit of nervous excitability which would induce an integration deficit, tilted vision emerging as a more common affection than believed. The central syndrome reveals aspects of the cerebral dynamics, suggesting a functional continuity and unity of the cortex. This is reflected in the model that was proposed, based on functional gradations through the cortex and scaling laws of dynamic systems.

http://www.neurologia.com/pdf/Web/4403/x030157en.pdf [Broken]

Inverted vision after frontal lobe disease.
Solms M, Kaplan-Solms K, Saling M, Miller P.
Source
Division of Neurosurgery, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Abstract
A case of bifrontal abscesses is reported. The patient claimed that he sometimes saw the world as if it were upside-down. A review of the literature reveals that, since 1805, 21 similar cases have been documented. The present case is unusual in that the neuropsychological status of the patient is investigated in some detail, and in that it seems to be the first report of inverted vision in a case of frontal lobe disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3064969

Indeed, I recall reading that Van Gogh reported to his doctor that he had an incident preceding a seizure during which one half of his visual field suddenly became inverted.

This suggests the brain does, indeed, automatically perform some inversion of the image that lands on the retina, and that they are reverted with respect to that image on the retina, a function that can be subtracted by disease. By "the brain" I could be referring to anything in and of the brain. Something is acting like a lens, a lens that can fail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
zoobyshoe said:
I googled and found there are cases of pathological inversion of vision:



http://www.neurologia.com/pdf/Web/4403/x030157en.pdf [Broken]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3064969

Indeed, I recall reading that Van Gogh reported to his doctor that he had an incident preceding a seizure during which one half of his visual field suddenly became inverted.

This suggests the brain does, indeed, automatically perform some inversion of the image that lands on the retina, and that they are reverted with respect to that image on the retina, a function that can be subtracted by disease. By "the brain" I could be referring to anything in and of the brain. Something is acting like a lens, a lens that can fail.

Sounds very interesting. I'll try to read these later on. At the moment, I'm still convinced that topographic maps (and hence our perception), are only oriented relative to each other through the pattern of connections between them. It is perfectly possible for my visual perception to be disoriented with respect to my proprioceptic of auditory perception, but I don't believe it can be oriented relative to my retina or the world itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
From your paper on inversion

It is also proposed a [sic] disfunction of the multisensory parieto-insular vestibular cortex, or its afferences, or of its association cortical areas [21,35], or a disorder of visiospatial integration [25,29,42].

I believe this supports my argument. (Note vestibular = balance).
 
  • #23
madness said:
Sounds very interesting. I'll try to read these later on. At the moment, I'm still convinced that topographic maps (and hence our perception), are only oriented relative to each other through the pattern of connections between them. It is perfectly possible for my visual perception to be disoriented with respect to my proprioceptic of auditory perception, but I don't believe it can be oriented relative to my retina or the world itself.
Oliver Sacks asserts:

"The retina, like the cochlea, is mapped systematically on the cerebral cortex, and damage to it (or edema beneath it) can cause strange distortions of vision, sometimes a warping of horizontal and vertical lines, as if one is looking through a fish eye lens. These distortions may be very noticeable if one glances at individual objects: a rectangular picture frame may appear both curved and trapezoidal, or a cup or saucer bizarrely deformed."
Musicophilia, p.145n

The question in all this is how we are conscious of any given perception. Does consciousness of what image is falling on your retina take place at the cortical retinal map? No one knows.

At any rate, we can, by pathological mechanisms, become conscious of a visual field that is inverted, or otherwise grossly distorted, with respect to what we're used to.
 
  • #24
"The question in all this is how we are conscious of any given perception. Does consciousness of what image is falling on your retina take place at the cortical retinal map? No one knows."

The evidence is that early topographic maps are not sufficient for consciousness. The topographic organisation of other regions becomes harder and harder to establish towards the frontal cortex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17395576

Empirical evidence to date suggests that no single brain area is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness. Instead, necessary and sufficient conditions appear to involve both activation of a distributed representation of the visual scene in primary visual cortex and ventral visual areas, plus parietal and frontal activity.
 
  • #25
madness said:
"The question in all this is how we are conscious of any given perception. Does consciousness of what image is falling on your retina take place at the cortical retinal map? No one knows."

The evidence is that early topographic maps are not sufficient for consciousness. The topographic organisation of other regions becomes harder and harder to establish towards the frontal cortex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17395576

Empirical evidence to date suggests that no single brain area is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness. Instead, necessary and sufficient conditions appear to involve both activation of a distributed representation of the visual scene in primary visual cortex and ventral visual areas, plus parietal and frontal activity.
I know. What I'm saying is that the location of the activity that results in consciousness might be cortical, it might be in the thalamus, or it might be distributed. A television is necessary to, but not sufficient for, a television image. One also needs electricity and a TV signal. The location of the television image, however, is on the screen.
 
  • #26
Electrical stimulation of the parietal cortex (which is further down the processing stream than the primary visual cortex) causes the experience of phosphenes. This seems to be evidence that conscious experience does not take place in the topographic map of the primary visual cortex.

I believe that consciousness arises from the integrated activity of various brain structures. This integration can be achieved through thalamocortical loops, phase synchronisation between brain structures etc. In fact the only fundamental scientific theory of consciousness that is genuinely considered at the moment is based on this kind of integration (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42/).
 
  • #27
madness said:
Electrical stimulation of the parietal cortex (which is further down the processing stream than the primary visual cortex) causes the experience of phosphenes. This seems to be evidence that conscious experience does not take place in the topographic map of the primary visual cortex.

I believe that consciousness arises from the integrated activity of various brain structures. This integration can be achieved through thalamocortical loops, phase synchronisation between brain structures etc. In fact the only fundamental scientific theory of consciousness that is genuinely considered at the moment is based on this kind of integration (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42/).
I agree with all this. No piece of cortex is sufficient for consciousness. I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that consciousness might happen at the cortex, just as the television image happens at the screen, despite the fact a TV screen by itself is not sufficient for a TV image.

The reason I suggested that was in reaction to Sacks report about physical distortion of the cortex (as by a hematoma) causing a corresponding distortion of the perceived image. It was an incidental remark and I didn't intend to get off the subject of image inversion with it.

The point of my post was:
"At any rate, we can, by pathological mechanisms, become conscious of a visual field that is inverted, or otherwise grossly distorted, with respect to what we're used to."

Your point, that no one has explained what it might mean for the image to be inverted, is a good one. I can't explain what it would mean, here, nor pinpoint a necessity for it. All I can offer is the fact it does seem to undergo an inversion, an inversion that can be subtracted by pathological means.
 
  • #28
I might be missing something but I thought the point of the research was whether this inversion mapping if it exists could be remapped in short order (days) by the brain.

The real experiment (like learning a language accent-free) is whether the brain makes this mapping in a young state and freezes it or loses the capability to change it later. Which makes a lot of sense to me.

Massive ethical problems aside, someone needs to put the inverting glasses on some toddlers and infants and see what happens.
 
  • #29
Antiphon said:
I might be missing something but I thought the point of the research was whether this inversion mapping if it exists could be remapped in short order (days) by the brain.
The thing to understand is that there are no maps of the external world in the brain. The map in question here would be the map of the retina on the brain. There's also some kind of vestibular map, and some kind of proprioceptive map involved in the perception of Up and Down. As Madness points out the important thing is for these to be coordinated with each other. They are: if you stand on your head, or hang upside down from a tree limb, all these senses are in agreement that you're upside down. The information they receive from the external world and interior body position and fluid pressure sensors will all agree that this is the reverse state of the conventional one.

Massive ethical problems aside, someone needs to put the inverting glasses on some toddlers and infants and see what happens.
I think if you look into the paper Evo linked to you'll see that they've done things like this with animals and it simply seems to damage their ability to ever process the information correctly. I think they concluded that separating vision out from the other participating senses and feeding it contradictory input in developing animals just caused a sort of atrophy of vision.
 
  • #30
zoobyshoe said:
I agree with all this. No piece of cortex is sufficient for consciousness. I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that consciousness might happen at the cortex, just as the television image happens at the screen, despite the fact a TV screen by itself is not sufficient for a TV image.

The reason I suggested that was in reaction to Sacks report about physical distortion of the cortex (as by a hematoma) causing a corresponding distortion of the perceived image. It was an incidental remark and I didn't intend to get off the subject of image inversion with it.

The point of my post was:
"At any rate, we can, by pathological mechanisms, become conscious of a visual field that is inverted, or otherwise grossly distorted, with respect to what we're used to."

Your point, that no one has explained what it might mean for the image to be inverted, is a good one. I can't explain what it would mean, here, nor pinpoint a necessity for it. All I can offer is the fact it does seem to undergo an inversion, an inversion that can be subtracted by pathological means.


My point is that the image is inverted with respect to other internal maps rather than the external world. We have retinotopic and spatiotopic maps; vestibular, somatosensory and auditory cues etc. We seem to build up several internal representations of space which are integrated in a way which we do not understand. It seems to me that any pathological mechanisms causing an inverted or distorted sense of vision are due to the interaction between these various representations of space rather than due to the relationship between the internal representation and the external world.
 
  • #31
madness said:
My point is that the image is inverted with respect to other internal maps rather than the external world. We have retinotopic and spatiotopic maps; vestibular, somatosensory and auditory cues etc. We seem to build up several internal representations of space which are integrated in a way which we do not understand. It seems to me that any pathological mechanisms causing an inverted or distorted sense of vision are due to the interaction between these various representations of space rather than due to the relationship between the internal representation and the external world.
After I posted I thought some more and I think I've somewhat figured the pathological inversion out. It's not a lens-like inversion with a concomitant flipping of left and right. It's probably always simply a rotation. Note the case study where the patient experienced degrees of rotation depending on the intensity of illumination. The cases of "inversion" are probably simply this rotation carried to 180 degrees, more or less.

The rotation is probably a normal function, a stabilizing correction that is always at work so that, for example, the world doesn't seem to be rocking back and forth when we walk, or appear to be tilted with slight, and even not so slight tilts of the head. Indeed, when you're lying on your side looking at the room there's no vertiginous sense the room is sideways. Up and Down seem pretty normal even though you, yourself, are sideways.

In these cases of vision inversion by disease this stabilizing effect is probably erroneously hyperactivated, rather than something being subtracted as I first supposed. Otherwise the man with the rotation problem would have seen a mirror flip in the image as well.
 
  • #32
zoobyshoe said:
There's no objective up or down. People at the North Pole feel just as normal as people at the South Pole, despite the fact they're in 180 degree conflict about Up and Down. There is objective centripetal acceleration toward the center of the earth, but that direction is specific to exactly where you are on the earth, and different in all locations.

The problem created by inverting glasses is that they selectively take one sense and put it at odds with the other senses, as the Opening Poster suspected.
Perhaps this was made clear already, but you missed the point. This is not about arbitrary labels or conventions due to gravity. Consider left and right instead:

You can close your eyes and touch your left shoulder with your right hand: Left and right wrt you are an objective reality. If your vision is mirrored, you would see your left hand going to your right shoulder, but that won't be what you feel.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
madness said:
My point is that the image is inverted with respect to other internal maps rather than the external world. We have retinotopic and spatiotopic maps; vestibular, somatosensory and auditory cues etc. We seem to build up several internal representations of space which are integrated in a way which we do not understand. It seems to me that any pathological mechanisms causing an inverted or distorted sense of vision are due to the interaction between these various representations of space rather than due to the relationship between the internal representation and the external world.

The first paper I linked to is very interesting:

http://www.neurologia.com/pdf/Web/4403/x030157en.pdf [Broken]
According to Gonzalo [51], the disorder in the visual direction function is not an autonomous syndrome, but it is connected with the rest of visual functions, and could be present in cases with cerebral lesions in different locations, provided there exists some involvement of visual functions. According to the ‘cerebral gradients’, the densities of the specific functions are extended in gradation through the cortex, so that there would not be a particular localization for such a disorder. In this respect, this author stressed his observations of different degrees of tilted vision in cases with lesions on the left or right parieto-occipital region, on the occipital pole, and also far from the occipital area (e.g., a very anterior parieto-temporal region), showing that the anomaly occur not only in central syndrome but also in the high diversity of the so-called paracentral syndromes. In fact, the cases of tilted or inverted vision reported in the literature are associated to a variety of cerebral lesions.

Direction orientation of things in the visual field is one of many functions that the cortex must perform:

When there is a lesion in the rather unspecific ‘central’ region, the main consequence is a deficit of nervous excitability which would lead to a deficit of integration through the cortex, determined by the lesion magnitude (neural mass lost). This deficit gives place, according to the experiences achieved, to the dissociation or decomposition of normal perception into its components or qualities, in such a way that the most complex qualities, with greatest nervous excitability (and integration) demand, become lost or ‘delayed’ in greater degree than the most simple ones (with lower excitability demand). Sensations usually considered as elementary are then seen to be decomposed into several functions, one of them being the direction function.

The direction has to be integrated with the other elements of vision, and on a different level with other senses. It's of interest to your point that the vision inversion or tilt could be temporarily corrected in some cases by strong stimulation of a different sense:

In the cases studied, it was remarkable that a strong muscular contraction was very efficient at improving the perception, reducing the functional disgregation significantly. This type of muscular ‘reinforcement’ straightened the tilted vision almost instantly, and simultaneously cleared the vision and dilated the visual field (about five times in case M). Figure 7 shows the perceived inclination of a vertical upright test arrow versus muscular contraction in case M [51]. Other types of reinforcement are, binocular summation, in which one eye reinforces the other, as well as tactile and acoustic stimuli, although their effects are far less dramatic than that obtained with strong muscular contraction.

However, there are many mentions of image inversion and reinversion. I couldn't quite sort out which were normal and which pathological. The paper may have been translated from Spanish or written in English by a non-native speaker. At any rate, the language is difficult in places.

I'm interested in the included cases where this image inversion is associated with seizures. Before this Van Gogh was the only case I'd heard of where seizures caused this. I happened to notice also that inverted images are listed as rare manifestations of migraine aura, which, as you're probably aware, can cause all kinds of visual integration problems.
http://www.severe-headache-expert.com/symptoms-of-ocular-migraine.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
hia,

try this, place your finger on the side of your nose, next to your eye. Very lightly (dont slip and poke you sen in the eye, because then we can't do the experiment, lol, :-) ) press on the inside of your eye. Notice a black spot appears on the outside of your vision! Because the image is inverted, what appears to be a sensation on the outside of your eye is actually a sensation on the inside!

Not convinced eh, well try this,

Go into a dark room with a friend, and have him or her look at a small light-emitting object, like a candle. If the room is dark enough, you will be able to see up to three images in his or her pupil. The first image (upright and brighter than the other images) is a reflection off the cornea. The second image (upright and very dim) is a reflection off the eye lens. The third image (dim and inverted) is a reflection off the retina. This third image is the image that is sent to the brain!
 

1. What is vision inversion?

Vision inversion, also known as the "upside-down illusion," is a phenomenon where an image appears to be flipped upside down when it is projected onto the retina of the eye. This is due to the way our brain processes visual information and is not an actual physical inversion of the image.

2. Why does vision inversion occur?

Vision inversion occurs because of the way our brain processes visual information. The retina of our eye is responsible for capturing images and sending them to the brain. However, the brain interprets this information in a way that makes the image appear upside down. This is because the retina is curved and the light coming into the eye is refracted, causing the image to be projected onto the retina upside down.

3. Is vision inversion a myth?

No, vision inversion is not a myth. It is a real phenomenon that has been studied and documented by scientists. However, there are some misconceptions and exaggerated claims surrounding it, such as the idea that the brain flips the image right-side up. In reality, the brain simply interprets the image as being right-side up, even though it is projected upside down on the retina.

4. Can vision inversion be reversed?

Yes, vision inversion can be reversed through the use of special lenses or mirrors that flip the image back to its original orientation. This is because the brain is able to adapt and adjust to the new information it receives, allowing us to see the image as right-side up again.

5. What is the meaning behind vision inversion?

The meaning behind vision inversion is a topic of debate among scientists. Some believe that it serves as evidence of the brain's ability to adapt and interpret sensory information, while others see it as a reminder of the limitations of our perception. Some also argue that it has no deeper meaning and is simply a result of the way our visual system is structured.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
18K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
270K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
584
Back
Top