Visualization 'demonic' face distortions in a case of prosopometamorphopsia | Hacker News Reader

Visualization 'demonic' face distortions in a case of prosopometamorphopsia

medicalxpress.com

60 pointswglb37 comments

>"We've heard from multiple people with PMO that they have been diagnosed by psychiatrists as having schizophrenia and put on anti-psychotics, when their condition is a problem with the visual system," says senior author Brad Duchaine, a professor of psychological and brain sciences and principal investigator of the Social Perception Lab at Dartmouth.

I wonder how many people have been driven to actual insanity by this?

This is exactly why I refused to keep listening to psychiatrists. The ratio of diagnosis precision vs treatment risks is insanely bad.

It's interesting how the distortions are confined to the narrow triangle that is the face. The remainder of the head is undistorted. From my experience with portrait painting I can say that the quality of our responce to this region is many times more acute than any other part of the body.

My vision is very poor, but even with my diminished vision I can tell if a student at the back of a lecture hall is looking at me or over my shoulder.

Not a neurologist, but I’m going to guess that this is because the face is processed by a dedicated perceptual apparatus.

As an aspect of that, the perception we get of a face is very much a "cooked" or processed representation of and not an exact picture of the face as it is. The thatcher effect and other similar effects are evidence of that.

So… does this imply that our perception is template-driven?

Perception is highly influenced by top down information as the brain models what it expects to see. It’s complex, but attention learned representations of the world have an enormous influence on perception.

Perception Deception: Nova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU6LfXNeQM4

Your Brain - Who's in control: Nova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6VOOd73MA

Both of these videos are great resources on how much of what you experience of reality is made up or filled in by your brain at any given moment. I believe it's the Perception Deception episode that shows us how little of our vision is actual HD quality and that an external observer doing eye tracking on you can present a different reality to you than a 3rd party looking at the same object you are (on a screen at least, little bit harder in the real world).

Which leads to foveated rendering which is nearly perfect on my Apple Vision Pro but if you quickly move your eyes up and down and side to side eventually the sensors lag and you see the blurriness.

It’s a very clever use of our vision processing that you only need to render in full 4K what our very narrow foveated view can see. As long as your eye tracking and lag is lower than around 12ms ish.

As someone who reads a great deal (both print and screen), many times I've glimpsed part of a written word, or even something that looks like a written word, and my brain has automatically generated a complete (and wrong) word. I catch it when a moment later I think "why would that word be there" and either I'll double-check and the word will turn back into whatever text fragment or letter-looking thing, or more rarely my memory of the pseudo-word will change.

Nicely expressed. Thank you.

The corneal bump on the front of the eye plays a major role in the accuracy with which we can determine whether someone is looking at our face, hands, body, etc., even from a considerable distance.

The shape of your eye isn't a sphere, and our brains make great use of how that changes the shape and highlights of the eye based on orientation.

> The shape of your eye isn't a sphere, and our brains make great use of how that changes the shape and highlights of the eye based on orientation.

Where can I learn more about this? Googling just pulls up medical cases of bumps on the eye.

Perhaps see [0] or some of the references it contains

[0]https://cgl.ethz.ch/Downloads/Publications/Dissertations/Ber...

Humans are optimized for faces in much the same way that dogs are optimized for scent.

So much so that we even see faces when there aren't any (in rocks, water stains, pieces of toast...)

Makes you wonder how many fantasy creations from fiction originated not from the author’s imagination but from their actual sensory experiences.

This is famously true for Lewis Carroll.

Not so famously, I'm afraid, I'd love to hear more. I did put in a honest effort: 35, fairly well read, and I spent some time Googling. Can't find anything other than a syndrome called "Alice in Wonderland syndrome" where sizes are perceived incorrectly in e.g. epileptics before a seizure.

When I was younger I had some episodes where I started to perceive distortions in distance and size. I perceived big things like houses suddenly as very little, like toys, and I felt I could grab then in my hand. Or I perceived little things suddenly as very large and far away. A toy soldier for example could grow to be the size of Statue of Liberty as if watched from the Battery Park. I found these distortions very fascinating. I didn't have episodes for more than twenty years. Last week however my older son told me about it and I told him, me too!

Same here. It’s common in children.

Huh. I had this as a child as well. Stopped well before I turned twenty. I can still vividly remember a doorknob seeming immense and then a tiny knob in the middle of a vast stretch of door.

Thank you for sharing!

I have recently read that surrealist painter Giorgio De Chirico might have been suffering from Alice in Wonderland syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_de_Chirico

Reminds me of “Flashed face distortion effect”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashed_face_distortion_effe...

https://youtu.be/VT9i99D_9gI?si=QHhzR00tib3ZuX-5

Isn't this normal? Its how I see everyone from upper management

In that case it's not a distortion.

Wow, strange, I suffered from similar symptoms years ago, and still remains of it at times and only found out about this term last week. (After years of searching in the void).

I wish I could find people working on topics similar to this (there are other forms of distortion and facial processing areas that can be altered by brain conditions).

I wonder how do people with PMO actually know they have this condition? If they always see faces "distorted", how do they know other people see them differently? Maybe when they feel the inconsistency when touching their face? Or they do not see distortions when they see only parts of a face and the rest is hidden?

I did experience something very similar under the influence of psilocybin. I think it's a relatively common occurrence. It is very trippy experience and it makes social interactions, obviously, somewhat problematic

Can anyone find any explanation for how the researcher might have controlled for deception in this kind of study? The linked article mentions that they did control for delusional beliefs about the identities of the faces the individual was perceiving - this helps reject the hypothesis that this is part of a larger psychiatric issue.

But the journal link does not discuss how the researcher rejects the hypothesis that the individual could be fabricating the experience. It could also be the case that the researcher helped fabricate the results to produce work - a risk created in part by the unending pressure of publish/perish.

Obviously it would be very unfair to assume that either patient or researcher are deceptive here, given that it's far more likely that both patient and researcher simply want to help people with this condition. I do not want to call the researcher into question, and much less do I want to invalidate the patient's experience.

But I'm curious about how we should approach this with healthy skepticism in the age of the replicability crisis - what specific signals do you use to confirm the likely veracity of the researcher and subject, given the very subjective and unblinded nature of the case study, and lack of discussion on how we discard the deceptive hypothesis? Did you find details that I'm missing? And if you assign a percentage to your confidence in this result, what percentage is it, and why?

I'd assume someone suffering from this condition has spent time and money on doctors to address it, suggesting that they're being earnest about their experiences and perceptions versus someone taking a researcher for a ride.

I'd also assume that they were referred by a doctor who is both familiar with the patient and with research into the condition.

Exactly. It's impossible to validate that this is really the illusion that the patient is seeing (which is highly unlikely to me) versus the possibility that the patient is making all this up (highly likely).

I also wonder, how the patient was able to confirm the face was deformed correctly if they genuinely have this condition. If they are looking at an already deformed image, that image will be further deformed, no? The deformation 'filter' will be applied to the image too...

> I also wonder, how the patient was able to confirm the face was deformed correctly

That's mentioned in the article - this particular patient only has that problem IRL, not when looking at screens or drawings.

Handy.

Oh boy, I hope the lizard-people-conspiracy idiots do not read this article...

There is a pretty good explanation of this in the documentary movie 'They Live'. Turns out they're just aliens most of us can't see.

> There is a pretty good explanation of this in the documentary movie 'They Live'.

Featuring renowned journalist Roddy Piper, no less.

I knew it, we are all surrounded by disguised demons.

They looks like the people/creatures from There Are Monsters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com