Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the nobody-reads-the-fine-print dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Exposure to a common visual illusion may enhance your ability to read fine print, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

"We discovered that visual acuity -- the ability to see fine detail -- can be enhanced by an illusion known as the 'expanding motion aftereffect' -- while under its spell, viewers can read letters that are too small for them to read normally," says psychological scientist Martin Lages of the University of Glasgow.

Visual acuity is normally thought to be dictated by the shape and condition of the eye but these new findings suggest that it may also be influenced by perceptual processes in the brain.

Interest in the intersection between perception and reality led Lages and co-authors Stephanie C. Boyle (University of Glasgow) and Rob Jenkins (University of York) to wonder about visual illusions and how they might affect visual acuity.

"The expanding motion aftereffect can make objects appear larger than they really are and our question was whether this apparent increase in size could bring about the visual benefits associated with actual increases in size," Boyle explains. "In particular, could it make small letters easier to read?"

Journal Reference: Martin Lages, Stephanie C. Boyle, Rob Jenkins. Illusory Increases in Font Size Improve Letter Recognition. Psychological Science, 2017; 095679761770539 DOI: 10.1177/0956797617705391

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by YeaWhatevs on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:58PM (4 children)

    by YeaWhatevs (5623) on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:58PM (#538811)

    It's really odd they would make some claims of readability but not even bother to include a demonstration of this in action. The research paper talked about sloan letters, but the lone illustration font size was bigger than the font size of the article itself, or was that just an optical illusion?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by inertnet on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:28PM (1 child)

    by inertnet (4071) on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:28PM (#538822) Journal

    Here you go:

    .

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:26PM (#538884)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:32PM (#538885)

      better one [youtube.com]