When (and Why) Does a Baby's Inverted Vision "Flip"?

[teacherman9000]

Greetings to all,

Just joined this forum today. Perhaps someone can help me answer a question that I've been pondering for more than a decade.

 

Here it is:

The human eye is much like the lens of a camera, telescope or microscope. An image, as it passes through the lens, is projected onto the retina upside down and backwards. It is the brain's job to sort out and make sense of the image entering through the eye.

Most doctors agree that newborn babies see everything upside down for a "period of time" - but no one really knows for how long. Since gravity determines "up" and "down", wouldn't the baby have to be able to at least hold it's head up to begin to sort things out? And wouldn't left and right logically follow after that?

 

Here's an explanation from Bill Nye the Science Guy:

 

Teacherman

Edited February 27, 2017 by teacherman9000

[Function]

Do you have any source saying that babies see stuff inverted for a short period of time? Or any period of time?

 

I don't see why that would be, truth be told; that is, not if the brain automatically is designed to 'reflip' the image vertically, which, imo, it does. You're right when saying that the image is inverted on the retina, but the upper and lower half of the retina project to parts of the brain that are also clearly separated from one another, by the calcarine fissure, if I'm not mistaken. In that way, the upper field of vision will project on the lower (retina and) primary visual cortex, whereas the lower field of vision will project on the upper (retina and) primary visual cortex.

 

But if I were to flip my eye, I would, of course, see everything inverted. It is almost undisputable that my brain wouldn't be able to correct-flip the image for me, since plasticity of our synapses has decreased too much from when we were a baby.

 

The question arises if the flip ever happened and, by extension, if it were necessary whatsoever.

 

Babies holding up their heads is, as far as I know, not guided by their vision, but rather is a postural reflex, determined by their vestibular system etc.

 

On the other hand, it's true that our vision is able to adapt to new situations quite quickly. I'm thinking specifically of the recalibration of eye movements when tracking someone (-thing) or when having to fix on another object: when e.g. someone is calling you withing your field of vision and you want to look directly at them, when suddenly wearing glasses, never having worn these before, you won't be able to fix the person on a first go. That is because your vision is distorted in comparison and your eyes are used to certain movement necessities to adjust to fix the person, that is, without the glasses. With the glasses, however, depending on the strength (actually: + of -), your eyes will move too much or too less and will have to readjust to fix the person. In fact, the correction and readjustment is controlled by the cerebellum. After a few tries, your eyes will have learnt the new 'set of movements' and will, without any problem, be able to fix new objects on the "first go".

 

Which, truth be told, doesn't have much to do with what you're asking and saying, but interesting nonetheless.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Function

[teacherman9000]

Do you have any source saying that babies see stuff inverted for a short period of time? Or any period of time?

 

I don't see why that would be, truth be told; that is, not if the brain automatically is designed to 'reflip' the image vertically, which, imo, it does. You're right when saying that the image is inverted on the retina, but the upper and lower half of the retina project to parts of the brain that are also clearly separated from one another, by the calcarine fissure, if I'm not mistaken. In that way, the upper field of vision will project on the lower (retina and) primary visual cortex, whereas the lower field of vision will project on the upper (retina and) primary visual cortex.

 

But if I were to flip my eye, I would, of course, see everything inverted. It is almost undisputable that my brain wouldn't be able to correct-flip the image for me, since plasticity of our synapses has decreased too much from when we were a baby.

 

The question arises if the flip ever happened and, by extension, if it were necessary whatsoever

 

 

Hi Fun,

After years of researching this question you are the first to claim that "the upper and lower half of the retina project to parts of the brain that are also clearly separated from one another, by the calcarine fissure." Assuming that is true, then you seem to be saying that the infant brain is actually pre-wired to view the world "right side up".Is that an accurate statement?

 

Thanks for your response.

Teacherman

 

PS Just GOOGLE "upside-down vision" and "babies" and You'll see that the "vision-flip" theory is the most common explanation....

 

 

Also, how would you explain this?

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by teacherman9000

[Function]

 

 

Never intended to be the first one to insinuate something ... Thought that was basic neurophysiology ...

 

As displayed in this figure below from the great Kandel et al.

 

(Reference to Eric Kandel; I have his "Principles of Neural Science", 5th ed.; if you want to get insights in neuroscience and neurophysiology, this book is an absolute must-have.)

 

To answer your question: that is what I thought was the case. Do you have articles proving the wrong-side-up theory in babies?

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Function

[CharonY]

But if I were to flip my eye, I would, of course, see everything inverted. It is almost undisputable that my brain wouldn't be able to correct-flip the image for me, since plasticity of our synapses has decreased too much from when we were a baby.

 

 

Actually, experiments with inversion goggles showed that people actually do get used to inverted vision and function normally after a while (classic experiment by Kohler and Erismann in the 50s).

That being said, I do not see lit to suggest that an inversion of vision has been demonstrated in infants. In fact the big issue is that initial vision in infants is poor and only little testing can be done.

There is for example evidence that infants as early as 4 months may struggle to recognize a face if it is held upside down (though with inconsistent results), but that in itself does not tell us which way around they perceive a face. If everything was perceived perfectly the other way round, one would also not necessarily expect a mismatch with motor responses (such as eyes tracking the wrong direction) as no experience of the "correct" way would lead to a misinterpretation of direction. As such an experiment would actually be tricky, I imagine.

 

In fact, prior to 4 months infants tend not to focus on certain hallmarks of the face (such as eyes) but scan more wildly around, which would also make the identification of a direction difficult.

Edited February 27, 2017 by CharonY

[Function]

 

Actually, experiments with inversion goggles showed that people actually do get used to inverted vision and function normally after a while (classic experiment by Kohler and Erismann in the 50s).

 

Aha. Luckily enough I said "almost indisputable". No I'm just saving my ass now. My apologies.

 

You say that they get used to it after a while and function normally. But that says nothing about visual correction by the cerebral cortex; it does, however, have something (and perhaps, mostly) to do with cerebellar corrections as I basically explained in my first reaction.

 

Or was it stated that the vision was automatically re-inverted after a while when wearing the goggles?

[teacherman9000]

 

Never intended to be the first one to insinuate something ... Thought that was basic neurophysiology ...

 

As displayed in this figure below from the great Kandel et al.

 

(Reference to Eric Kandel; I have his "Principles of Neural Science", 5th ed.; if you want to get insights in neuroscience and neurophysiology, this book is an absolute must-have.)

 

To answer your question: that is what I thought was the case. Do you have articles proving the wrong-side-up theory in babies?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks so much for this, Fun. I have never seen or heard of it before. It sure does give me a lot more to think about.

What do you think about the woman who sees upside down? I have several more examples of people with this issue if you'd like to see them.

 

Teacherman

[StringJunky]

Is the direction of gravity the key signal that determines spatial orientation and the brain adjusts to that?

Edited February 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[teacherman9000]

So does the optic nerve have separate wiring inside it that goes to the upper and lower areas of the retina. The diagram above shows the area where the nerve enters the brain.

 

Very interesting and thanks again....

Teacherman

Is the direction of gravity the key signal that determines spatial orientation and the brain adjusts to that?

My guess is that gravity determines what is perceived as up and down (and later on, left and right).

If that's true, then what would happen if a human infant were born in 0-G??? In space there really is no "up" and "down".

 

Teacherman

Edited February 27, 2017 by teacherman9000

[Function]

So does the optic nerve have separate wiring inside it that goes to the upper and lower areas of the cornea retina. The diagram above shows the area where the nerve enters the brain.

 

Very interesting and thanks again....

Teacherman

 

My pleasure. The thought experiment on what would happen when babies were to be born in zero-gravity circumstances is intriguing and would basically solve the question once and for all partly, but is under not any circumstance ethically justifiable.

 

Edit: perhaps not once and for all, since, if the inverted-sight theory would be true for newborn babies for some time (perhaps even for some minutes), then the inversion of the inverted sight would perhaps also happen in space, if the baby were to move his head up and down: the brain will learn that the movement of the head and what the baby eventually sees (and thus the changes in perceived image, a visual movement), are not conform (are discrepant), and will potentially still correct the inverted sight to decrease the discrepancy between head movement and contradictory perceived vision movement.

 

One could argue that "why would the brain even want to put effort in correcting the image", if the baby is able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement. However, stating this would also undermine the original theorem about inverted vision in newborn babies: they could perfectly learn to live with it. That's why I think gravity isn't the main argument for our brains to invert a potentially pre-inverted image, but rather a discrepancy between head movement and visual movement. Imagine that everyone would be born with inverted sight that were never to be corrected. We would have learnt to live with it and we would be having the discussion from the other side of the table and we'd be asking ourselves things such as "why are things falling up and why isn't our brain correcting that image?"

 

All of this, imo, leads to the statement that there is no inverted sight in newborns.

 

On the people seeing upside-down: perhaps an error in neur(on)al development; cortical dysplasia? ... ?

Edited February 27, 2017 by Function

[teacherman9000]

Thanks Func (still haven't settled on a nickname) for your response,

You said:

"One could argue that "why would the brain even want to put effort in correcting the image", if the baby is able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement. However, stating this would also undermine the original theorem about inverted vision in newborn babies: they could perfectly learn to live with it. That's why I think gravity isn't the main argument for our brains to invert a potentially pre-inverted image, but rather a discrepancy between head movement and visual movement. Imagine that everyone would be born with inverted sight that were never to be corrected. We would have learnt to live with it and we would be having the discussion from the other side of the table and we'd be asking ourselves things such as "why are things falling up and why isn't our brain correcting that image?"

 

Suppose I were to say that I believe there is a significant number of individuals who are "able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement" and that I have accumulated a significant amount of evidence to justify my belief. Would you be willing to look at that evidence?

 

Teacherman

 

PS What did you think of the "upside-down woman" video? Also, here is an explanation of the function of the retina and how vision is inverted by a "retinal expert". http://www.retinaeyedoctor.com/2010/03/eye-images-reversed-on-retina/

 

Here's another one from a site called Vision Web that claims the image is sent to the brain inverted and it's up to the brain to make sense of it: http://www.visionweb.com/content/consumers/dev_consumerarticles.jsp?RID=35

I'm taking this as just another opinion. My mind remains open......

Edited February 28, 2017 by teacherman9000

[Function]

Suppose I were to say that I believe there is a significant number of individuals who are "able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement" and that I have accumulated a significant amount of evidence to justify my belief. Would you be willing to look at that evidence?

 

If that proof were to present itself under the form of A1-published, peer-reviewed articles, then yes, by all means. Posted a line of thought on the inverted-sight woman in an edit of my previous reaction.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Function

[CharonY]

 

Aha. Luckily enough I said "almost indisputable". No I'm just saving my ass now. My apologies.

 

You say that they get used to it after a while and function normally. But that says nothing about visual correction by the cerebral cortex; it does, however, have something (and perhaps, mostly) to do with cerebellar corrections as I basically explained in my first reaction.

 

Or was it stated that the vision was automatically re-inverted after a while when wearing the goggles?

 

If I recall correctly, after about a week (longer is some cases) the subjects perceived vision as normal while wearing the goggles. This effect is accelerated when cues are given (e.g by touching objects) to which side is the right way up. Also interestingly, strongly focusing on cues while seeing things the "correct way" but focusing on the fact that they are inverted may make them inverted again. In other words, the brain uses cues to figure out which way is up and help you interpret it correctly and it is actually not a exclusively hard-wired effect. Once cues are missing, however, one could expect that the brain uses the information relatively raw (conceptionally speaking).

 

As such it is not inconceivable that an infants perception may be incorrect, but there is really no way to tell (other that they are able to distinguish direction at a certain age). Once they can relate the relative position to their vision it would correct itself, assuming the mechanisms are similar to adults.

 

Edit: while searching for the original research (gotta love the classics) I found this. Unfortunately it is in German but it actually describes some of the effects I mentioned.

Edited February 28, 2017 by CharonY

[Function]

 

Also interestingly, strongly focusing on cues while seeing things the "correct way" but focusing on the fact that they are inverted may make them inverted again. In other words, the brain uses cues to figure out which way is up and help you interpret it correctly and it is actually not a exclusively hard-wired effect.

 

Reminds me of the optical illusion of the lady silhouette spinning where you are asked whether she is turning leftwards or rightwards. Mostly I basically see her turning one way (can't remember which one), but when I focus really hard, I can manage to trick my brain in believing she's turning the other way.

 

Or on my train. Some trains here have black displays with yellow light letters displaying some text. Above the text, which moves from right to left (so that the letters, naturally, appear in the right order), there is a static yellow dotted line. When focussing on the line, you can't see the static dots moving (as they aren't), but when reading the text underneath, you're tricked in believing the dots are also moving along with the text, from right to left.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Function

[teacherman9000]

Thank you so much for this link, Char. I have read about the Erisman and Kohler experiments but have never seen this particular film. I'm just making it easier for forum members to view the YouTube video. Too bad it's not in English....

 

 

George Stratton was the first to do this type of experiment in the late 1800's and came the closest to duplicating the upside down and backwards effect of the lens in the eye. He actually used glass lenses.

 

In the Erisman and Kohler experiment above, mirrors were used, so the image was simply upside-down. Today there are lots of people experimenting with inversion goggles constructed with prisms, but again, the image is just upside down. Left is still left and right is right.

 

With today's technology someone should be able to come up with inversion goggles similar to virtual reality glasses that could flip the world in real time and be worn comfortably and continuously for a month or two.

 

I volunteer to wear them.

Teacherman

 

[CharonY]

 

Reminds me of the optical illusion of the lady silhouette spinning where you are asked whether she is turning leftwards or rightwards. Mostly I basically see her turning one way (can't remember which one), but when I focus really hard, I can manage to trick my brain in believing she's turning the other way.

 

Or on my train. Some trains here have black displays with yellow light letters displaying some text. Above the text, which moves from right to left (so that the letters, naturally, appear in the right order), there is a static yellow dotted line. When focussing on the line, you can't see the static dots moving (as they aren't), but when reading the text underneath, you're tricked in believing the dots are also moving along with the text, from right to left.

 

Indeed, it basically demonstrates that perception is a highly active and integrative process and can be readily modified by learning and/or habituation.

 

With regard to the video, I assume that it is easy enough with google translate, but if needed I, I could translate some passages.

Edited February 28, 2017 by CharonY

[teacherman9000]

 

Indeed, it basically demonstrates that perception is a highly active and integrative process and can be readily modified by learning and/or habituation.

 

With regard to the video, I assume that it is easy enough with google translate, but if needed I, I could translate some passages.

 

A translation would be great, Char!!

 

As for "perception is a highly active and integrative process and can be readily modified by learning and/or habituation" I think this video demonstrates that idea remarkably well....

 

Here's another one...

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by teacherman9000

[teacherman9000]

Another vision inversion experiment but, again, this does not do exactly what the lens of the eye does. The eye produces an image that is both upside-down and backwards.

 

Enjoy,

Teacherman

 

[teacherman9000]

If anyone is interested there is a similar conversation going on right now on the Physics Forum.

Here's the link:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/when-and-why-does-a-human-babys-vision-flip.906170/

[teacherman9000]

Is the direction of gravity the key signal that determines spatial orientation and the brain adjusts to that?

 

Thanks for your question, String

I think for most people the brain's spatial orientation is in sync with the direction of gravity. But what happens if it isn't?

Reading, which is normally top-to-bottom and left-to-right becomes something else.....

 

 

 

My pleasure. The thought experiment on what would happen when babies were to be born in zero-gravity circumstances is intriguing and would basically solve the question once and for all partly, but is under not any circumstance ethically justifiable.

 

Edit: perhaps not once and for all, since, if the inverted-sight theory would be true for newborn babies for some time (perhaps even for some minutes), then the inversion of the inverted sight would perhaps also happen in space, if the baby were to move his head up and down: the brain will learn that the movement of the head and what the baby eventually sees (and thus the changes in perceived image, a visual movement), are not conform (are discrepant), and will potentially still correct the inverted sight to decrease the discrepancy between head movement and contradictory perceived vision movement.

 

One could argue that "why would the brain even want to put effort in correcting the image", if the baby is able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement. However, stating this would also undermine the original theorem about inverted vision in newborn babies: they could perfectly learn to live with it. That's why I think gravity isn't the main argument for our brains to invert a potentially pre-inverted image, but rather a discrepancy between head movement and visual movement. Imagine that everyone would be born with inverted sight that were never to be corrected. We would have learnt to live with it and we would be having the discussion from the other side of the table and we'd be asking ourselves things such as "why are things falling up and why isn't our brain correcting that image?"

 

All of this, imo, leads to the statement that there is no inverted sight in newborns.

 

On the people seeing upside-down: perhaps an error in neur(on)al development; cortical dysplasia? ... ?

 

Hello again, Function

Just re-reading your post and it makes so much sense. "Why would the brain even want to put effort in correcting the image if the baby is able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement."

 

I totally agree. Even when arm and leg movements came into play there should still be no problem.

 

But what happens when the baby begins to hold her head upright in relation to gravity and, later on, begins to try to stand? Now there is a huge discrepancy in what her eyes are telling her and the world around her. Wouldn't it make more sense for her brain to "flip" the image into sync with the world around her at this point? I think for the majority of people it does.

 

But does it have to flip? I would say no - and for some people I don't think it does. The problem comes in when the child has to learn to read top-to-bottom and left-to-right.

 

Even that can be overcome if the child is allowed to position the book differently. This video demonstrates what I mean.....

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by teacherman9000

[teacherman9000]

So easy (and fun) when the child can read and write in the way that is best for her....

 

[teacherman9000]

 

If that proof were to present itself under the form of A1-published, peer-reviewed articles, then yes, by all means. Posted a line of thought on the inverted-sight woman in an edit of my previous reaction.

My original question was:

"Suppose I were to say that I believe there is a significant number of individuals who are "able to learn to live with the discrepancy in head movement and visual movement" and that I have accumulated a significant amount of evidence to justify my belief. Would you be willing to look at that evidence?"

 

 

Here's some more proof, Function, but it is not A1-published and peer reviewed. This article appeared in JET Magazine in 1969

https://books.google.com/books?id=jDgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=marietta+Everett+upside+down&source=bl&ots=qPu8dhgSu6&sig=F-BtlXfCGDNI1--qhTHoMv97gGI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H6UFT4aOLaLW0QHx_uT0DQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=marietta%20Everett%20upside%20down&f=false

 

Here's another article about Marietta 20 years later. I spoke to her several years ago and she's still alive and kicking in Alabama....

https://books.google.com/books?id=368DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=marietta+everett&source=bl&ots=t-gnA8aF7e&sig=fuMtXMbINO1ZXqZwvisf6tHXFMM&hl=en&ei=JOk6TKSNHYH98AazjfWmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=marietta%20&f=false

Edited March 7, 2017 by teacherman9000