Our 'core perception' framework has many implications: it generates a ton of ready-to-test hypotheses, raises questions about conceptual development, and more. We look forward to seeing your comments! (If you can’t access the paper: https://t.co/Bww41sEbJo) [5/5]

From physics to even the social domain, we consistently find this pattern: core knowledge representations also guide visual processing of object, number, geometry, agent, etc, suggesting that these two are the same thing—perceptual mechanisms shared by infants and adults. [4/5]

Why think this? We show a striking overlap between (1) core representations found in infants, and (2) representations found in ‘high-level’ adult vision. Specifically, core representations display empirical signatures of perception in adults: automatic, encapsulated, etc. [3/5]

We argue that core knowledge—which is canonically considered *conceptual* (or at least non-perceptual) in nature—is best explained as part of *perception*. That is, we think that infants’ early conceptual knowledge should be reframed as sophisticated forms of seeing. [2/5]

Our @BBSJournal target article has been accepted: "Core Perception": Re-imagining Precocious Reasoning as Sophisticated Perceiving With @AlonHafri , Véronique Izard, @chazfirestone & @stricklandbrent Read it here: https://t.co/tUjkPHax4c A short thread [1/5]👇

The Double Ring Illusion shows that *physics* is integrated in our visual system! Our paper pushes this illusion a lot further in various ways: adding other cues to compete with solidity, generalizing to other displays, etc. Check it out in JEP:G! https://t.co/z2PZKJ63Ok. [6/6]

Is this percept actually explained by the proximity of the rings? Have a look at these gapped rings. If you’re like most people, the unstable percept is restored – because the gaps remove the possibility of solidity violation. [5/6]

This suggests that the visual system ‘knows’ that objects cannot pass through each other (i.e. ‘solidity’ constraint), thus ‘forcing’ you to predominantly see the motion that respects solidity (180° co-rotation), rather than the motion that violates it (360° co-rotation)! [4/6]

How about in this case? Surprisingly, most people *predominantly see 180° motion*, while 360° motion is hardly, if ever, perceived – even though the rings move in the same way as above! [3/6]

How do the rings appear to move, if you fixate on the cross? For most people, the rings move sometimes in 180° co-rotations (‘flipping’ back and forth), sometimes in 360° co-rotations. This multistable percept is normal, since the stimuli are ambiguous. [2/6]

New paper: the ‘Double Ring Illusion’! Does the visual system integrate *intuitive physics*? This new illusion developed by @stricklandbrent and I offers a straightforward demonstration – one that you can experience yourselves! Demos in thread👇 [1/6]

Our new paper on the "Pulfrich Solidity Illusion" with @dawei__bai is out at PB&R. Our new variant of the Pulfrich effect demonstrates a surprising degree of tolerance for violations of solidity when pitted against motion and depth cues. https://t.co/kAUvIRvqvP