<p>Binaural beats result from a difference between the stimulus presented to each ear. The brain tries to integrate them and the perceived low-frequency beat is an artifact of that processing. There are optical illusions that involve presenting distinct, isolated inputs to each eye, and I'd consider those the closest equivalent to binaural beats. </p>

<p>The apparent motion in the image doesn't rely on binocular vision; you can see that easily by looking at it with one eye closed (in fact, I think that makes it stronger). I'd guess it's probably based on edge detection or lateral inhibition, which don't (I think) have a particularly close analog in sound perception. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-01T22:20:53.377Z
2012-06-02T00:00:53.673Z
2012-06-02T00:00:53.673Z
octern
<p>I've tried looking at this image in greyscale and I still get the illusion. So it doesn't seem like the illusion relies on chromatic information. The effect is definitely weaker however, so it might be the case that the illusion relies on common properties of the colour and non-colour visual pathways (e.g., parvocellular and magnocellular), however we would need an isoilluminant chromatic version of the stimuli to be sure.</p>

<p>Maybe the following article will provide the answer.</p>

<p>Cropper, S. J. &amp; Wuerger, S. M. (2005). The detection of motion in chromatic stimuli: A critical review. Behavioural and Cognitive Science Reviews, (Invited for publication).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-04T17:24:56.213Z
A comparison of color and grey scale can be found [here](http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_rotsnake/).
draks ...
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-02T17:54:33.120Z
2012-06-02T17:54:33.120Z
Bronson
<p><a href="http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html" rel="nofollow">Akiyoshi's website</a> answers the first of your questions. He calls it the <strong>peripheral drift illusion</strong>. </p>

<p>The <em>Rotating Snakes</em> illusion is the culmination of a long series of modifications that Akiyoshi made to enhance the peripheral drift effect, that was discovered by Fraser and Wilcox. In 2003 he wrote <a href="http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/PDrift.pdf" rel="nofollow">a paper</a> describing his work, but admitted that all he had was rules to enhance the effect, but not an explanation for it:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although this study only reveals phenomenological or design rules to
  obtain the peripheral drift illusion with large illusion magnitude, we
  are seeking an explanation on the basis of motion detector models.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>His <a href="http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/resdown.html" rel="nofollow">publications page</a> shows a new (2012) paper which offers a more comprehensive explanation based of fMRI studies of the primary visual cortex, V1. If you have Elsevier access you can read it <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191200314X" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Yet another reason why <a href="http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&amp;q=elsevier" rel="nofollow">publicly funded research should have public access</a>. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-14T00:14:16.597Z
2012-06-14T00:27:05.427Z
2012-06-14T00:27:05.427Z
bfrs
<p>The optical motional illusion shown below, makes your brain see some motion, where there is none.</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/5eVJH.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p>In my opinion it's fascinating, although after a while you get a headache. It reminds me of binaural beats, where the brain simulates the difference tone, which is obviously not there. The way that these illusions work is obviously quite different than how binaural beats work, as stated in the comments.</p>

<p>Despite that, it's said that the beats stimulate your brain, so my questions are</p>

<ol>
<li>What is the name of this optical illusion?

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiyoshi_Kitaoka" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Akiyoshi Kitaoka</a> studied these kind of optimized Fraser-Wilcox illusions. </p>
</blockquote></li>
<li>Does it affect the brain in a similar way to binaural beats? I mean the overall effect, not the specific way how Fraser-Wilcox illusions or binaural beats enter your mind.</li>
</ol>

<p>For those who liked the previous picture, here it is:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/sg8oS.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-01T15:14:58.393Z
I don't really see why it would be related to "binaural beats" at all. Visual and auditory "illusions" have very different causes. In addition the "effects" of biaural beats are largely in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats#Unverified_claims at best it sounds like "binaural beats" are very similar to white noise in terms of their relaxing "effects.
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-01T15:22:46.290Z
@BenBrocka I don't think the OP meant 'similar' as in 'using the same neural mechanism' but as 'producing similar qualia in a different domain (i.e. visual instead of auditory).
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-01T15:23:25.047Z
More to the point I think you should focus on asking one question at a time; what is the name of/causes this sort of illusion seems like an okay, answerable question, it's relation to binaural beats seems very tenuous unless you have some reason to believe there are similar causes/effects
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-01T15:26:07.600Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev then the question is...what qualities? I don't really see a perceived tonal difference as being anything like perceived movement due to spatial patterns
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-03T20:52:46.890Z
@BenBrocka, the question on the name might be omitted. I thought somebody here would know it. The question of most interest to me is: Do these kind of pictures stimulate your brain?
draks ...
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-04T18:00:53.130Z
@draks try to be more precise when you mean 'brain' and when you mean 'mind', and definitely try to be more precise with the word 'stimulate'; Any stimuli trivially stimulates. Also, drastically changing the question (by for instance changing the [image](https://i.sstatic.net/J3GRQ.jpg) it is based around) after it has answers is usually considered bad form.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-04T19:13:48.857Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev I'm not an expert, so sorry for the mind-brain confusion. Although it's in question that binaural beat somehow affect the brain/mind, let's assume it for the moment. A frequency that doesn't exist, is somehow generated in our brain/mind. My question, if the motion illusion, where motion is seen where there is none and if this is affecting/stimulating our brain/mind, doesn't rely on a specific example/picture. I'll will just add the old one again. The current one was invented by Akiyoshi Kitaoka, which answers my 1. question.
draks ...
<terminology><perception>
Is this optical illusion the visual equivalent of binaural beats?
draks ...
# Is this optical illusion the visual equivalent of binaural beats?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-06-01)

The optical motional illusion shown below, makes your brain see some motion, where there is none.

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/5eVJH.jpg)

In my opinion it's fascinating, although after a while you get a headache. It reminds me of binaural beats, where the brain simulates the difference tone, which is obviously not there. The way that these illusions work is obviously quite different than how binaural beats work, as stated in the comments.

Despite that, it's said that the beats stimulate your brain, so my questions are

1. What is the name of this optical illusion?
   > [Akiyoshi Kitaoka](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiyoshi_Kitaoka) studied these kind of optimized Fraser-Wilcox illusions.
2. Does it affect the brain in a similar way to binaural beats? I mean the overall effect, not the specific way how Fraser-Wilcox illusions or binaural beats enter your mind.

For those who liked the previous picture, here it is:

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/sg8oS.jpg)

**Tags:** terminology, perception

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't really see why it would be related to "binaural beats" at all. Visual and auditory "illusions" have very different causes. In addition the "effects" of biaural beats are largely in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats#Unverified_claims at best it sounds like "binaural beats" are very similar to white noise in terms of their relaxing "effects.  
> **username_2**: @BenBrocka I don't think the OP meant 'similar' as in 'using the same neural mechanism' but as 'producing similar qualia in a different domain (i.e. visual instead of auditory).  
> **username_1**: More to the point I think you should focus on asking one question at a time; what is the name of/causes this sort of illusion seems like an okay, answerable question, it's relation to binaural beats seems very tenuous unless you have some reason to believe there are similar causes/effects  
> **username_1**: @ArtemKaznatcheev then the question is...what qualities? I don't really see a perceived tonal difference as being anything like perceived movement due to spatial patterns  
> **username_0**: @BenBrocka, the question on the name might be omitted. I thought somebody here would know it. The question of most interest to me is: Do these kind of pictures stimulate your brain?  
> **username_2**: @draks try to be more precise when you mean 'brain' and when you mean 'mind', and definitely try to be more precise with the word 'stimulate'; Any stimuli trivially stimulates. Also, drastically changing the question (by for instance changing the [image](https://i.sstatic.net/J3GRQ.jpg) it is based around) after it has answers is usually considered bad form.  
> **username_0**: @ArtemKaznatcheev I'm not an expert, so sorry for the mind-brain confusion. Although it's in question that binaural beat somehow affect the brain/mind, let's assume it for the moment. A frequency that doesn't exist, is somehow generated in our brain/mind. My question, if the motion illusion, where motion is seen where there is none and if this is affecting/stimulating our brain/mind, doesn't rely on a specific example/picture. I'll will just add the old one again. The current one was invented by Akiyoshi Kitaoka, which answers my 1. question.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-06-01. Score: 5

Binaural beats result from a difference between the stimulus presented to each ear. The brain tries to integrate them and the perceived low-frequency beat is an artifact of that processing. There are optical illusions that involve presenting distinct, isolated inputs to each eye, and I'd consider those the closest equivalent to binaural beats.

The apparent motion in the image doesn't rely on binocular vision; you can see that easily by looking at it with one eye closed (in fact, I think that makes it stronger). I'd guess it's probably based on edge detection or lateral inhibition, which don't (I think) have a particularly close analog in sound perception.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-06-02. Score: 4

I've tried looking at this image in greyscale and I still get the illusion. So it doesn't seem like the illusion relies on chromatic information. The effect is definitely weaker however, so it might be the case that the illusion relies on common properties of the colour and non-colour visual pathways (e.g., parvocellular and magnocellular), however we would need an isoilluminant chromatic version of the stimuli to be sure.

Maybe the following article will provide the answer.

Cropper, S. J. & Wuerger, S. M. (2005). The detection of motion in chromatic stimuli: A critical review. Behavioural and Cognitive Science Reviews, (Invited for publication).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: A comparison of color and grey scale can be found [here](http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_rotsnake/).  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2012-06-14. Score: 4

[Akiyoshi's website](http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html) answers the first of your questions. He calls it the **peripheral drift illusion**.

The *Rotating Snakes* illusion is the culmination of a long series of modifications that Akiyoshi made to enhance the peripheral drift effect, that was discovered by Fraser and Wilcox. In 2003 he wrote [a paper](http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/PDrift.pdf) describing his work, but admitted that all he had was rules to enhance the effect, but not an explanation for it:

> Although this study only reveals phenomenological or design rules to
> obtain the peripheral drift illusion with large illusion magnitude, we
> are seeking an explanation on the basis of motion detector models.

His [publications page](http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/resdown.html) shows a new (2012) paper which offers a more comprehensive explanation based of fMRI studies of the primary visual cortex, V1. If you have Elsevier access you can read it [here](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191200314X). Yet another reason why [publicly funded research should have public access](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=elsevier).


---

