In this article we will explore Cornsweet illusion from different perspectives, analyzing its impact on current society, as well as its historical relevance and possible future development. We will delve into its origins and evolution, examining its influence in different areas of daily life. Through interviews, studies and analysis, we will try to shed light on the importance of Cornsweet illusion and how it has shaped the world we know. In addition, we will examine different opinions and points of view to offer a complete and enriching vision on this topic. Join us on this journey of exploration and inquiry about Cornsweet illusion.


The Cornsweet illusion, also known as the Craik–O'Brien–Cornsweet illusion or the Craik–Cornsweet illusion, is an optical illusion that was described in detail by Tom Cornsweet in the late 1960s.[1] Kenneth Craik and Vivian O'Brien had made earlier observations in a similar vein.[2]
The original version of the illusion involved a rapidly spinning black-and-white disk, painted in a way that would create the appearance of a gradient effect when in motion.[3] An equivalent static version of illusion is composed of a gray rectangle where the left half fades to a lighter shade as it approaches a vertical center line, and the right half fades to a darker gray approaching the same line. As a result, the whole left half of the rectangle appears lighter than the right half, but in fact the brightness of both areas is exactly the same. This can be seen by blacking out the region containing the edge.
This phenomenon is similar to the phenomenon of simultaneous contrast and Mach bands, but differs from it in two important respects.

A far more convincing and dramatic version of the effect can be seen in the article by Purves, Lotto, and Nundy,[4] where it is presented within a quasi-realistic image of solid, illuminated objects.[5] These writers give an explanation of this and other illusions, in which the visual system and brain are posited to generate percepts on an empirical basis that is much like a reflex. In their words, "... accords not with the features of the retinal stimulus or the properties of the underlying objects, but with what the same or similar stimuli have typically signified in the past."[citation needed]