Fixation Induced Blindness

This article reports how fixation could convey visual stimuli to the invisibility region whether the stimuli are presented centrally or peripherally regardless the textures of the background. It also reports the impossibility of conveying visual stimulus to the invisibility region when the stimulus is not fixated, namely, when the stimulus is in motion. We started in discussing how visual fixation could convey a centrally presented stimulus (pink horse) into the invisibility region under certain conditions, and why breaking the aforementioned invisibility by an intentional saccade away from the fixational point allows the stimulus to exert a ghostly horse but with complementary colours. Scientists had been hypothesizing that image aftereffect is caused by neural adaptation. In another word, the retinal photoreceptors & its corresponding neurological pathways to the visual awareness might be being idle, namely, the visual respective field might be idle. Idle visual receptive field seems to be the best explanation of the present illusion, namely, we see the light grayish background turned to greenish in the aforementioned desensitized receptive field. Important to mention, fixation greatly inhibits the spontaneous saccadic eye movements, and thus, it reduces the rooms of the receptive field remapping. Namely, every visual space will be possibly have unchangeable visual map in the brain. To arrest the aforementioned statements, we built a running stimulus to disallow the overlapping of the image and its aftereffect, and we found that the image cannot disappear. In another word, the visual awareness of the aforementioned stimulus would have ghostly & cloudy green balls in between the original materials (purple balls). The previously mentioned finding confirms the role of the spontaneous saccadic movement in promoting visibility & preventing the blindness, also see reference 1. We ended this research with asserting whether the claims against Emmert's law which raised doubts about the accurate compliance of the aforementioned law and size–distance invariance hypothesis. Weirdly enough, the claims are correct as if the image aftereffect projected against distant wall is following the dynamical visual angle but not the static one.