Talk:Color phi phenomenon

Fact Check
I wrote this article based on the Dennett book, but its description isn't particularly rigorous. What color is the "movement" field-- the same as the dots, or the opposite, or the background. Based on the book, it seems like it's the same color of the dots, but I'm not sure that's accurate. If anyone knowledgeable stops by, do correct me if i'm wrong on any details. --Alecmconroy 08:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Major Issue!
This is titled the 'Colour Phi phenomenon' and is linked to the 'Phi Movement' wiki.

But Phi Movement differs from Beta Movement in that it involves the perception of movement that is not associated with the discrete stimuli used. For the phenomenon to be called a 'Phi' phenomenon, the movement perceived would need to be in conjunction with perceivably non moving dots. In the example given here, however, the movement is associated with and in fact perceptually implies a continuous persistence of a single, colour-changing dot.

That is to say, this 'Colour Phi phenomenon' is actually a 'Colour Beta phenomenon'.

Please join this discussion if you have anything to add. This is a severely under-addressed topic in perceptual psychology

-James Gilronan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.166.249 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with you. I wasn't aware of the difference between beta and phi movement, or even the existence of beta movement. I've always heard of the flickering lights producing movement being the phi phenomenon, so the alternating colours would be the colour phi phenomenon. But having read about beta movement, it seems like a beta phenomenon. I don't know whether things have become too ingrained now to buck the trend.Keepstherainoff (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Applet in the external link
This page says the applet doesn't work, but it worked fine for me. It would be good if someone confirmed & maybe removed the warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.48.42 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It does work
It most probably was a problem on the side of whoever said it didn't work. I tested both with Firefox (3.5.4) and Internet Explorer (can't find the version, but it is the one that comes stock with Vista). Both worked fine, so I removed the warning.

Luke poa (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)