Comments on: 12-year-old uses Dungeons and Dragons to help scientist dad with his research

By: Pete d.

Pete d. — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:31:33 +0000

Very cool! And it makes me wonder how folks with varying degrees of face-blindness/prosopagnosia would behave. I don’t know enough about the condition to know if they’re capable of or inclined to follow a gaze, but a quick Google Scholar search for “prosopagnosia eyes” brought me to “Does Prosopagnosia Take the Eyes Out of Face Representations? Evidence for a Defect in Representing Diagnostic Facial Information following Brain Damage”:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892905774597254

Though they only have a single non-control subject to go by, there does seem to be a bias away from the use of eyes for recognition in that subject. But I wonder if that bias affects gaze-following…

Anyway, love the article and, of course, that first-author credit!

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:35:02 +0000

This is wonderful research. I have aspergers and an eidetic memory, so when I am explaining my stories I can see my memories, (think the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). So I will look around in my memory, and Neuro-typical people always look around to try and figure out what the heck I am looking at. It’s really frustrating for both parties because the NT cannot visualize what I am explaining, but in my mind I can reach out and touch it. (Think when Forrest Gump tells his story from the bench and we then see what he sees in his mind on the screen).

And kudos to Julian!

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:15:56 +0000

This is study an Ignoble waiting to happen.

Also very cool. Before I read the article, I decided to bet on face rather than eyes because I’m not someone who looks (at least consciously) at people’s eyes. I have to forced myself when it’s necessary in social situations.

Once again, my brain is acting in ways I’m completely oblivious to.

By: John

John — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:59:27 +0000

@Julian Another option is to test with subject whose eyes are like Marty Feldman; the eyes point in different directions. I have one eye that due to an operation drifted to the outside. I also have alternating vision; I focus out of one eye more than the other. The eye I’m focusing through is the one that points towards the person I’m looking at. I don’t do well with those tests that have a different image for each eye and you try to ‘put them together’.

My wife noticed once that, at a party, a woman I was talking to was trying to make eye contact with me but couldn’t tell which eye was directed at her. She slowly swayed back and forth so that she could make contact with each eye in turn.

By: Saline Ivy

Saline Ivy — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:45:08 +0000

I for one would like to know if the study used any creatures, such as butterflies, moths, etc. which have eyespots on them. We know it’s a common method of camouflage in nature, and we can probably assume it is used to scare/ward off predators which prefer to lurk in shadows/out of sight (I’m not going to try to sneak up on you if I think you saw me), but as for analyzing the neurological half of that equation I’m not sure any testing has been done to address this.

I am keeping in mind three factors which I would suggest that researchers consider:
1. This would go well beyond testing “things that convincingly appear to be eyes”, to “things that appear to be eyes at first glance but are obviously not with more exploration”.

2. As an artist and an observer, I look at places first where there is more pronounced color/light contrast, and then as my eyes adjust to the lighting I can parse more complicated details. Recognizing the basic shapes of things is easier to do when there is a high level of contrast in general, and when the shapes of things are not obscured by cover/light bloom/color blindness/etc.

3. Finally, I would wager that there is a difference in mindset between animals who are primarily concerned with tracking prey/avoiding predators, and domesticated animals who are raised and bred to have little concern for such things. I propose that this could skew the results of any testing (such as the above, since it is suspected at least some humans may be domesticated, while others of us are violent and predatory).

By: Colin Kawaguchi

Colin Kawaguchi — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 05:25:38 +0000

Needed Correction:

In the article it says above the second photo: (which he’s modelling in the photo above)
This should say: (which he’s modelling in the photo below)

The photo above is in fact a Beholder, and I am almost positive Julian Levy is not one.

By: Christ

Christ — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 04:59:46 +0000

I don’t know about the premise of entire study, whether it’s just where people look INITIALLY or if it’s where people look IN GENERAL, but when I am talking to people, I actually more often look a their mouths as they are forming their words. Just a random thought that matters very little/none in the scope of everything.

By: Jeanette

Jeanette — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:43:03 +0000

@de-vilish-sly – They also used 36 different images according to the article. Even if they used one of the beholder, there were still 35 others.

By: Jeremy Williams

Jeremy Williams — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:25:30 +0000

Sounds like an interesting study. Also, it is always cool to have roleplay materials involved in academic endeavors.

By: Jacquelyn

Jacquelyn — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:05:14 +0000

There are so many things to love about this post, and this study, that I don’t even know where to start. Hats off to Levy for a brilliant idea, Kingstone for an open mind, Ed for a great post, and of course to the late Gary Gygax for making it all possible.