Talk:Spinning dancer

What Evidence?

The article dismisses the "right brain vs left brain" theory but doesn't actually offer any actual evidence to support that claim...other than claiming it's 'just an illusion'...which apparently in Bizzaro World magically equates to scientific analysis...or a Q.E.D. fallacy in the real world.

There is hard scientific proof that it *DOES* show which side of your brain you normally use and anyone can prove it to themselves. How? Is the dancer spinning right? Okay, start doing math problems in your head. Don't focus on the image at all, just start analytically doing math problems in your head. Oh, hey, look at that, she suddenly starts spinning to the left. Neat how that works. You can do it the opposite way by thinking creatively instead of analytically. No need to focus on any particular points, no need to try "imagine" one appendage magically moving one way or the other, no need to try and decipher visual cues, no, just do some math problems...or make up a story or something creative like. --OnideusMH (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Crazy.

Sometimes it turns anti clockwise and I can't get it to go back, other times it spins clockwise and I can't get it to change.

That is not a pirouette

A pirouette has to be on pointe or demi-pointe, which this is obviously not. So somebody ought to correct that foolishness, ASAP, if you will please sir. Vygraf (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT! You seem to know all about it. APL (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I revised the explanation slightly

I did this yesterday, hopefully uncontroversially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

clockwise, or anti-clockwise?

No matter how hard I look at it, it is obviously spinning clockwise. Dengero (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Try blocking out the top part of the dancer (till the waist), whilst concentrating on the lower part. Then imagine it spinning the other way, and it will. Great illusion. Right? Muhammad(talk) 10:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• If this is still not working for you, try covering up more and more of the upper body. On the first attempt, I had to go down to the knees, then uncover the upper body a little at a time (even this took several attempts). On the second attempt, I had to cover all the way down to the feet, and it never appeared to switch from counter-clockwise, until I fully uncovered it and then she was spinning clockwise. In other words, even if it seems impossible (I thought it was for me), try experimenting a bit. Verminjerky (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Same for me at first, always counterclockwise. The above advice helps; focus on mentally forcing one leg to go in front of the other even though it seems not to.--Nate Martin (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this thing is amazing. At first it seemed impossible to visualize the dancer spinning counterclockwise. But once I visualized it, it is extremely hard to see it turning clockwise again. Just amazing! --Marsbound2024 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• She is spinning counter-clockwise due to a rendering artifact in frame 13: http://ofb.net/~whuang/imgs/spin/ --Samikaze (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • And when that artifact is removed from the animation - then which way is she spinning? ....... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-09-03 14:23Z

white line on vertical leg, in frame 13

Most right-brained people report that she will start spinning to the right when they blink multiple times while looking at the right side of her body. Left-brained people typically say that it's an optical illusionuntil you ask them to stare at the lower part of her body, beneath the knee. Mardiste (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The trick

The illusion is in her legs, more specifically her knees. If you stare at the dancer's chest or head the illusion becomes much harder to see (change direction). When the dancer brings her leg in front of the other, it's impossible to tell whether shes facing you or facing away from you (since you can't see her breasts - and the image is completely black). One way to make the dancer change direction is when she faces you and brings her leg in front of the other, deliberately blink and imagine she is turned away from you. With a bit of practice you can make her turn back and forth. Hope this info helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemoe (talk • contribs) 11 February 2008

I was unable to switch directions (clockwise only), until holding it up to a mirror. When I held my laptop in front of mirror, I saw it still moving clockwise. Once I removed it from the mirror I saw it spinning anti-clockwise. After doing this, I only need to think of a mirror for it to switch directions every 180 degrees. By thinking of the mirror over my couch I can change the direction of the rotation. This is a very strange and cool experience.--24.147.48.94 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was using the foot to make the change, (and it was quite mentally straining) until I tried your mirror method, and it works every time without any brain-strain. Brilliant! Robert M Johnson (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're stupid... maybe this inference is

In the below link this guys says that those who are not able to see her spin both ways are probably not geniuses. I can see her spin both ways so I tend to agree, but I'd love to see someone with an actual background in this stuff confirm or deny this.

http://www.sonnyradio.com/spinninglady.html

Arthurian Legend (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then Im a genious! All you are under my control now! Mwahahahahahahahahaha. --Fixman (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You might want to reconsider that, since you've made a logical error called denying the antecedent. <g> ("if not able, then not genius" is not the same as "if able, then genius") - dcljr (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

Why does this have its own article? Its a great illusion, although I can't seem to make it spin counterclockwise, but does it really merit an article? I first heard about it here, so... 81.96.160.6 (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a thing and Wikipedia is a bunch of articles of things. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is notable. It was a widely circulated internet phenomenom and thus an interest to the public, especially because it was circulated with misinformation. Correcting this misinformation is, in itself, reason enough to have a page dedicated to it. Sensation and Perception classes frequently point to it as a standard example of an optical illusion arising out of ambiguity / lack of depth clues, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.85.128 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another tip for changing direction

The only way I could get myself to see the "opposite" direction (for me, at first I could only see clockwise) was to twirl my finger counterclockwise directly between my eyes and the dancer's foot. The third-dimensional visual cue provided by my finger helped my brain to make the switch. - dcljr (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blink your eyes rapidly and continually, to make it look like the early silent movies, and the dancer will change direction more quickly than when just keeping your eyes open. I don't know why. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Objections to bobbing motion and lighting

Some people have objected to the bobbing motion and odd lighting effect in the image. I believe this was done so the shadow would (possibly) appear to be in the right place whether you're seeing clockwise or counter-clockwise spin. If the figure were not moving vertically and were simply lit from directly overhead, the shadow's motion on the floor would give away the direction of spin. - dcljr (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC

Facebook application

On Facebook, there's an application called "The Brain Test." It tells the user if they are right or left brained.. with one single test: The Spinning Dancer. I'm not sure if that's notable since it's an application which isn't made by Facebook. --staka (T ・C) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Pseudo Science

A few months ago, the illusion appeared on an Australian tabloid television show called Today Tonight. Unfortunately, the presenter said nothing but absolute nonsense about it. Now it is conceivable that the same nonsense had been repeated around the globe on equally despicable television shows ('trash TV shows' as some people might call them). So maybe the article should focus more on how an alarming number of people have been successfully fooled into believing that the spinning dancer illusion is a test of brain function and the fact that the potentially dangerous hoax created by the media is not widely known. 122.105.144.11 (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is an illusion test but not the one that everyone thinks it is. From what I can figure out the question isn't about how the figure is spinning but how she would be spinning if it was standing still (like a photograph). The animation spinning around is actually meant to you fool you. It is programed to flip rotation so if you block out the upper half you're a bit of an idiot (blocking out the up half means you miss the programming and assume the animation is the "illusion" causing your eyes to flip the rotation) However that isn't the illusion. The test of brainpower comes by looking at the actual figure not the animation. The figure never flips her rotation on her own thus you aren't looking for a motion change only a preception change. The figure is clearly standing on her left foot. The question (and thus the illusion) is if the right foot pulls toward the left(ie the figure is captured going counter clockwise) or if it pulls away from the left(suggesting a clockwise rotation). What direction the animation is spinning and what angle the figure is at will change the persective of what way the figure is rotating. My theory, she is standing still.24.252.49.221 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The best proof that is figure is standing still (rotating niether clockwise or counter clockwise) is one of the few points the left foot is flat on the ground (ie when she is facing away from the viewer) Nice or in evil (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Virtually everything 24.252.49.221 said is completely wrong. Nothing is "programmed to flip". It is simply an orthographic silhouette of a rotating shape. She is also not "clearly standing on her left foot" or her right foot for that matter. Her chirality is simply not knowable. Even that still image you've placed here can be a girl standing on her left foot facing away from us (Her left toe is on the ground pointed away from us and slightly to her right.) Or it can be a girl standing on her right foot facing towards us. (Her right toe is on the ground pointed towards us and slightly to her left (our right).)

This is at the core of the illusion. Because the image is a silhouette and not a shaded image there is no way of knowing if any feature is pointed towards or away from the viewer.

Finally, If you are imagining her standing on her left foot but rotating clockwise you are imagining a girl whose joints bend the wrong way. Painful. APL (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The foot that's on the ground confused me for a while. It seemed to me that it had to be backwards (with the toes facing away) if that leg was her right leg and she was facing the viewer. But if you see the image as showing her foot with the toes raised, so that only her heel is touching the ground, then it makes sense as her right foot. Oi; quite a brain/perception-twister RedSpruce (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The arch in her back comfirms that she is facing away from us, also she must have like the most deformed nose on the face of the planet to be facing towards us.211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay hit me I finally caught the left foot/right foot switch but its not the left brain right brain trick every one thinks it is. All you have to do is visualize that rotation (clockwise or counter clockwise and the foot will flip). Odd though from what I read is actually is flipping back and forth not rotating 24.252.49.221 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is this is what a dancer with two left feet looks like!--76.21.91.75 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I disagree with User:Scapler's statement that "Numerous other notable psychological illusions have all meet the notability guideline, this one is no different." This animation was created in 2003, according to Kayahara's website, but has only recently received attention due to its circulation as an internet meme. I'm not sure whether coverage in the New York Times' "Well" Blog and Dr Novella's blog sufficiently satisfiies WP:N. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No lack of visual cues...

The illusion isn't, as the article states, from the lack of visual cues for depth. The illusion is that there are conflicting visual cues. Specifically, the dancer is spinning clockwise, while her shadow is spinning counter clockwise. First look at the shadow. Note when you see the shadow of her extended leg. She would have to be spinning counter clockwise to cast that shadow, otherwise the shadow would be moving further back on the floor while her leg was closest to you. To put in another way... assume she is spinning clockwise. Note the point where her she is nearly touching the ground. Her extended leg would be furthest away at that point, and closest to the floor, but you can't see it's shadow? So the shadow must be of the dancer spinning counter clockwise. In fact the easy way to make her spin counter clockwise is to focus on the shadow.

However, ignoring the shadow, the dancer is clearly spinning clockwise. Again the key is with the extended leg. Imagine if there was no up and down motion... as she spins, and her leg moves further away from you, her leg would move toward the horizon, which is vertically higher up on the screen (unless the camera was below her feet, which it clearly is not). If she was spinning counter clockwise, when her leg was furthest away, it would be at its lowest point on the screen, despite the fact that she is at her highest point in the up and down motion. - Indecision (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's all in your mind. You're seeing the shadow rotate in a different direction, which is perfectly acceptable, because it's a separate object. This goes to show just how powerful the illusion is. She is not "spinning" in any direction, nor is her shadow. She is a black 2-dimensional collection of pixels, constantly changing shape. Because your mind perceives this shape as a familiar 3-dimensional object - a woman rotating-, your brain wants to assign a rotation to it. The problem is that there is no shading on the 2-dimensional object to indicate 3-dimensional depth (ie, lack of visual cues) so the rotation is subjective. Once your brain makes a choice about which rotation (CW or CCW) it perceives, it sticks with that rotation. It is only when you stare at the bottom foot, reducing the amount information and assumptions, that you can make yourself believe it is rotating in the opposite direction. The shadow is just a copy of this same 2-dimensional object, rotated 180 degrees, and colored gray instead of black. As such, the same rules apply. However, because only the foot is shown in the shadow, it is easy for one to get into the situation you are in - seeing one object rotating one way, while its "shadow" is rotating another way. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-07 14:46Z

Well, yes, obviously it's just a "2-dimensional collection of pixels," but that's not the point. The point is there are visual cues that indicate motion in both the CW and CCW directions, the main one being the shadow (though technically it is a reflection, its hard to imagine it not as a shadow). It would be simply impossible for a shadow to go off the bottom of the frame and not be moving towards you, which would mean rotation CCW. Focus on the shadow, or better yet, block off everything but the shadow, and tell me if there's any way you can imagine it rotating CW. - Indecision (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not taking into the account the facts that a) she is bobbing up and down, and b) technically, when you see here spinning one way, you are looking at her from a slightly different height than when you see her spin the other way (note how the varying slope of the foot on the straight leg). You're also assuming that the reflection/shadow is a true representation of reality and is at the proper visual angle with respect to the primary object. That's not the case at all. It's just the same animated object, rotated 180 degrees, and colored gray. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-11 13:17Z

if you look solely at the reflection of the foot, you will notice that at one point the sole of the foot is visually above the center of the leg (which would imply it being further away if it were a flat surface) and at another point it disappears (which would imply that it was in line with our line of sight and the leg (or closer to us) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But, She's closer to the ground when the "shadow" is visible. APL (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Height doesn't matter in this picture. The shadow/reflection is an obvious giveaway. It's geometry. The closer the shadow appears to the foot from that perspective, the further away the foot must be. For the foot to be moving right to left on the page when the shadow/reflection is closer to the foot, it would have to be turning CCW from the top down perspective. I challenge anyone to recreate the image using a 3d model and try to get the same effect from a top down CW perspective. You can't. The image should have been created without a shadow/reflection for the full effect. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're partially right. It could only be a shadow CCW, and could only be a reflection CW.

APL (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's a shadow or a reflection, it could only be closer to the foot if it were further farther away.



Whether it's a shadow or a reflection, it could only be closer to the foot if it were further farther away. I say it's a reflection because a shadow wouldn't have perfect symmetry. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Spot on Oicumayberight! Thanks for that.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Except for the spelling errors. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You're making assumptions about the plane the shadows and/or reflections are being cast on. APL (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please expand! APL
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

APL there are plenty of clues and geometric giveaways. It just takes knowledge of geometry and perspectives. Again, I challenge anyone to use a 3d model program to get the same effect rotating CW.

She's obviously tilted with the top part farther away from the camera. That's why her extended left leg appears shorter when pointed towards the camera. The ponytail appears above her shoulders when her back is towards the camera, and below her shoulders when she is facing the camera.

The way to make a 3d model more ambiguous is to have a perfectly upright silhouette and the camera waist high. There should be no floor to reflect off of or cast a shadow on to. The camera depth effect should be minimized so that closer objects are undistinguishable from farther objects by appearance of size. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't stop spinning to the right

Seriously, I've tried for like ten minutes, tried applying all of the hints in this page, it is impossible for her to just magically start spinning in the opposite direction! She spins to the right, not to the left, otherwise her boobs and hair would appear on the other side of her body, anyone who has claimed to see her dance to the left needs a powerful set of glasses.211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You fail, sir. If you back urself up and read the above posts, maybe you can see her rotating the other way. Good day.82.36.244.186 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same, sir. But then I drank a glass of whiskey and suddenly there were two rotating in opposite directions... --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you concentrate on the bottom left and imagine it to spin left it does and vice vesa. Daz.

When I first take a look at this article, the dancer was sometimes spinning to the left, sometimes spinning to the right, but now she keeps on spinning to the right... What helped me to regain both views were these pictures below and imagining that they show two dancers rotating symmetrically, in opposite sense of rotation. (Without whiskey...) --Cyfal (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a great way to visualize them both at once - just put them side-by-side! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-07 23:51Z

But you have edited those pictures to give her lines at the visual break of her legs, thus creating an illusion. There were no lines in the actual picture.211.28.54.73 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The point was not to keep the illusion. The point was just to show that there are indeed two different rotations, and they were both accomplished using the same exact animation. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-11 13:18Z

I have no problem problem picturing the dancer rotating clockwise. But I had to use the animation with added lines to picture her dancing counter-clockwise. However there is still one part of the picture my brain refuses to see rotating counter-clockwise: her foot (the one touching the ground). I don't know why, everything rotates counter-clockwise but her foot is rotating clockwise. After a few seconds, my brain resolves the issue by seeing the whole model rotating clockwise. It seems to me, that with the suggested perspective (especially with the shadow) the way her right foot moves (if you see the model going counter-clockwise) is very unnatural, if not impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.64.209 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for apparent discrepancy in reflection

When rotating CCW, the reflection of the outstretched foot is seen only when the foot is away from the viewer. On the other hand, when rotating CW, the reflection of the outstretched foot is seen only when the foot is closer to the viewer. Furthermore, the latter of the two cases seems unnatural because one would probably expect to see a reflection only when the foot is away from the viewer.

Fortunately, there is a simple explanation. The image submitted by the image's author to Wikipedia has the reflection cutoff prematurely, and as a result it is not visible in the aforementioned half-turns. The original image on the author's web page does not have this issue. If only the author had submitted the image without the reflection at all, or without the reflection cutoff as such, the issue wouldn't have arisen. I have emailed the author about this concern. --AB (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RADAR Dish Illusion

The same illusion can occur with a real life spinning object (for example a RADAR dish) if it is transparent. In reality, the dish only spins in one direction, but it can appear to reverse direction on itself when seen side-on. This is despite the visual cues that occur when the receiver assembly passes behind the dish structure. Because it is transparent, it is impossible to tell if it is passing behind the structure or not.86.168.116.203 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A deep clue.

I have an unusual eye problem. I do not have depth perception and I do not have a lazy eye. The rotation of the image has a strong correlation with whichever eye is dominant at the moment. I can almost always cause the rotation to switch by ordering my eyes to switch roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.27.221 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I have no depth perception either, but to me she appears to spin clockwise regardless of which eye I look at her with. I find it extremely hard to make her spin counterclockwise, although I know that such an image must be ambiguous. It's a kind-of an optical equivalent of the tritone paradox, and I wonder whether there's a correlation with left-to-right vs right-to-left writing systems. (I know there's such a correlation in other similar cases.) ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can get her body to spin in one direction, and her bottom foot to spin in the opposite direction, but that one is difficult to maintain. Whenever it breaks down, the body begins to rotate in the direction I was imagining the foot to rotate. — BRIAN0918 • 2010-02-13 21:44Z

Inefficient Compression

The three thumbnail images on this page are over 800k in file size. This makes the page load quite slowly. The higher quality originals are compressed to 200k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.90.239 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it even an illiousion

It appears no one has noticed that the image is a GIF image, which means its animated.

I thought illiousions were meant to trick the mind into thinking things were moving like the picture on http://marieconbgdlr.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/optical_illusion1.jpg notice how its a JPG file, but still appears to be spinning making it an illiousion, but take a look at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Spinning_Dancer.gif notice its a gif image, which is animated.

As soon as the image becomes a jpg or bmp, she stops spinning. Sophie ^(Talk) 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.^Illusion - it does not have to be a fixed image. In fact, it doesn't have to be an image at all - you can have Auditory illusions like Deutsch's scale illusion, for example. Chzz  ►  20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

but if asked "which say does she spin?", she is actully spinning clockwise Sophie ^(Talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The illusion is that she is spinning both ways. Some people see it spinning clockwise, some people see it spinning counterclockwise, and many people can see it both ways.

Illusions that can be seen more than one way are common. Is this a duck or a rabbit? Is this a head-and-shoulders portrait of a young lady, or a close up of an old woman's face? At first you'll see one or the other and think it's obvious, then you'll see the other and realize that it's an illusion. Same with the spinning dancer. It is spinning both ways, it's all in how you look at it.

(By the way, if you unfold the "Versions of the image with an additional visual cue" tab in the article, you'll see versions of the image with some extra lines drawn in (and an indication of which leg you should be imagining the straight leg as) to help you "see" this illusion both ways. If that doesn't work, try this web site where someone has drawn eyes on the dancer to help you see it in each direction.) APL (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, here's a good one. here APL (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That link concludes at the end that the writer "...examined this far too long, and [is] convinced that the original rendering (before the silhouette) was a counter-clockwise rotation...", but that it has some flaws that are designed to trick you into thinking that it is a clockwise rotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, as discussed above there's a rendering artifact in one frame that gives away which way it was rendered. APL (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Move?

To Spinning Dancer. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created a redirect to this page from Spinning Dancer. -download ׀ sign! 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't get it

There seem to be too many visual clue to say that she is spinning in anything but clockwise. Her hair, the outstretched leg and hand, and even her breasts all point to spinning clockwise. I can't conceive how she could be viewed as spinning in the other direction (contrast with the hollow face illusion).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In silhouette, her hair, leg, and breasts would look exactly the same regardless of which direction she is spinning in. The illusion is so powerful that it is making you think there is structure in the image that isn't actually present. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out this illustration here. Start by looking at her legs. Left left one has been altered so that her legs can only be seen as going clockwise, the right one has been altered the other way, the one in the middle is unaltered. I find that if you look at one of the altered ones then look at the middle one (perhaps covering the other with your hand?) the illusion is unmistakable. APL (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see it. This would be a good picture to put in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lifted arm always behind the body?

I noticed the previous seven edits are a controversy about the lifted arm 1. Please discuss it here on the Talk page. Anonymous user X, you have removed the original statement "her arms could be swinging either in front of her to the left or behind her to the left" three times (I suppose these repeated anonymous edits are from a single same person, is that correct?) Your edit summary was that in your opinion her arms are always swinging behind her. Please explain your arguments to support your opinion. Just for clarity: what is your opinion about the lifted leg, is it always behind the other leg as well? If so, please take a look at this animation: 2. Ceinturion (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He just explained himself on my talk here. Apparently he was confused and thought that the passage implied that the arm might be behind her from her own point of view, which it couldn't be. Frankly that alternate reading of the passage hadn't even occurred to me, but perhaps that's because I already understood the concept before I read the passage.

I've tried to clarify. APL (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. Ceinturion (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brain Side Dominance As It Relates To Spatial Acuity

Well it's been months and ~still~ no one has even talked about this at all nor even attempted to provide a *REAL* explanation as to ~why~ spatial illusions somehow magically have nothing to do with brain dominance, other than simply saying so (a QED fallacy). I mean you can't exactly deny the fact that if the dancer is spinning clockwise and you start doing math in your head she suddenly starts spinning counter clockwise, which seems to support the theory that human spatial acuity is influenced by what centers of the brain you happen to be focusing on. --OnideusMH (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to talk about. Wikipedia doesn't publish hearsay, only published facts. Are you aware of a reputable scientific publication linking the Spinning Dancer to establishing brain dominance? I'm not aware of one, so I have nothing to say on the topic.

If you know of such an article in a real scientific publication, then let us know! Or be bold and fix the article yourself. APL (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, by that logic, since there's no actual facts ~proving~ it's *NOT* the case, (other than simply saying so), then likewise, that entire portion making the baseless QED claim should then be removed. --OnideusMH (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "Psychology of visual perception" section? Let's examine it. It's been incorrectly identified as a scientific test. That is true, it's origins are purely artistic. (This is established and sourced earlier in the article.) This interpretation is unproven. Also true. (Unless you're aware of such a proof?) And it was widely circulated on the internet 08-09. Also true.

I don't understand your objection here. APL (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, what we have is a reliable source stating that there's nothing to the brain-side theory. And I can (and do) deny the claim that doing math in your head effects the apparent direction of rotation. That is definitely not the case for me. Not that my (or your) anecdotes have any place in the article. If you want a "real explanation", you could try writing to Dr. Novella. But Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "truth(iness)". If you want to change anything about that section, you need to find reliable sources to cite. It's not a "QED fallacy", it's an appeal to authority, which is only a fallacy if the authority is questionable, which is not the case here. Xtifr _tälk 21:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Left/right profile not unambiguous

"When she is facing to the left or to the right, her profile is unambiguous – her breasts and ponytail clearly define the direction she is facing."

This statement that keeps being reinstated is nonsense. Regardless of which direction she is facing, the leg that's vertical might be either her left leg or her right leg, and the leg that's at an angle might be either her right leg or her left leg, depending on whether she's spinning clockwise or anticlockwise. Hence my correction:

"When she is facing to the left or to the right, her breasts and ponytail clearly define the direction she is facing, although there is ambiguity in which of her legs is which." — Smjg (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. APL (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

These images are not helpful at all

I can make both spin either clockwise or counter-clockwise when avoiding looking at the details of the images. I suggest removing them because it'll further confuse people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can!

What's to confuse?

Read the postings above carefully!

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Outlined versions

Recently a user moved the outline versions to the very top of the article, before the lede and primary image even!

I've reverted this twice because I think it's pretty obvious that it's poor form. The lede and primary image should always come first, and explanitory images should go in the body of the article. For example Checker shadow illusion. ApLundell (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

a spinning figure? Comment

Is this a variation or another effect?

https://49.media.tumblr.com/87423d97f3fbba8fa491f2f1bfbb6893/tumblr_o1jdiqp4TC1qabbyto1_500.gif

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The WikiCommons media of the day shows this effect as well: File:Human skull - animation 02 bright.gif. Other than the PET scan image, there is no mention in the article that this is one example of a larger category of ambiguous rotation illusions. --Lasunncty (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A lack of visual cues for depth? Not really.

The article asserts that there is a "lack of visual cues for depth". But, while there are fewer visual cues for depth than a typical image, there's hardly a complete lack of them. If we assume some assumptions that are normally the case in the world, several visual cues for depth appear. Let's assume the dancer is human and is rotating about a vertical axis above a horizontal ground plane, and that in her own frame of reference, she is not moving.

Well, first, an aside: Several things are unrealistic: the dancer would fall over: She is off balance; this is most evident if one looks at frames 15 and/or 33, in which her feet point toward or away from the viewer, it seems impossible that she would not fall to the side. (In many frames by contrast, her leg is a plausible counterbalance.) She is also rising and falling as if by magic; her feet never touch the ground and the one foot that comes closest to the ground and the leg it's attached to never make a jumping motion; I wonder why Kayahara has that happen.

How far above the ground is the viewer? I)If she's moving CW (from above), the movement of the lifted leg suggest we are looking down toward her from a height above her head: then it makes sense that when the lifted foot is closest to us, it crosses her other leg at the ankle, while when it is furthest from us, it crosses the ankle. II)If she's moving CCW (from above), the movement of the lifted leg suggests we are looking up toward her from below ground level: only then does it makes sense that when the lifted foot is closest to us, it crosses her other leg at the ankle, while when it is furthest from us, it crosses the calf. Well, there's an alternate explanation: from the dancer's own frame of reference, her raised leg is moving - specifically, the raised leg moves much closer to the vertical leg when passing behind it; this explains the way it passes by the ankle when farther away. --GeniusBarman (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC) (edited: pony tail discussion parallels foot and is less obvious, so removed.)

Not spinning?

Now that I've stared at this for a while, it just looks like she's always facing forward and just swinging her leg from side to side. Anyone else get that effect? 2001:14BB:140:33F1:4D42:6DA3:5643:C27A (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally someone who gets it! Slug like you (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The same stuff happens to me, but I can also visualize it to move both ways Slug like you (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Video Format Issue

Due to the format of the file, the video in this article is not accessible from any iPhone, iPad or Android device. Considering the visual effects of the illusion are why the page exists in the first place, this is pretty absurd.

Can someone help get this converted to a format that’s mobile friendly?! Herenow44 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The famous version of this file is an animated gif.

Looks like that was removed from the article and replaced with an .ogv in 2020.

The reason given was to improve accessibility, so if it's breaking accessibility it should be reverted. ApLundell (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)