Change Blindness

Simons, Daniel J.; Ambinder, Michael S.

doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00332.x

Cited by 246 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most researchers agree that scene representation is not picture-like, but instead is more schematic in nature (e.g., Henderson & Hollingworth, 2003;Hochberg, 1978, Intraub, 1997, Simons & Levin, 1997Simons & Rensink, 2005). The schematic character of representation has also been posited specifically in the case of transsaccadic memory (Carlson-Radvansky, 1999;Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1995;Irwin, 1991Irwin, , 1992Verfaillie & De Graef, 2000;Verfaillie et al, 1994).…”

Section: Implications For Transsaccadic Memory and Scene Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transsaccadic representation of layout: What is the time course of boundary extension?

Dickinson¹,

Intraub²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How rapidly does boundary extension (BE) occur? Across experiments, trials included a 3-scene sequence (325 ms/picture), masked interval, and repetition of one scene. The repetition was the same view or differed (more close-up or more wide-angle). Observers rated the repetition as same, closer, or more wide-angle than the original view on a 5-point scale. Masked intervals were 100, 250, 625, or 1000 ms in Experiment 1, and 42, 100, or 250 ms in Experiments 2 and 3. BE occurred in all cases: identical views were rated as too "close-up", and distractor views elicited the rating asymmetry typical of BE (wider-angle distractors were rated as being more similar to the original than were closer-up distractors). Most important, BE was evident when only a 42-ms mask separated the original and test views. Experiments 1 and 3 included conditions eliciting a gaze shift prior to the rating test; this did not eliminate BE. Results show that BE is available soon enough and is robust enough to play an on-line role in view integration, perhaps supporting incorporation of views within a larger spatial framework.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Transsaccadic Memory and Scene Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transsaccadic representation of layout: What is the time course of boundary extension?

Dickinson¹,

Intraub²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Demonstrations of change blindness and inattentional blindness support this view, showing that without visual attention, significant events or changes can easily escape our awareness (Mack & Rock, 1998;O'Regan, Rensink, & Clark, 1999;Rensink, O'Regan, & Clark, 1997;Simons & Levin, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Perception of Objects in Natural Scenes: Is It Really Attention Free?

Evans

Treisman

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

230

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have suggested attention-free semantic processing of natural scenes in which concurrent tasks leave category detection unimpaired (e.g., F. Li, R. VanRullen, C. Koch, & P. Perona, 2002). Could this ability reflect detection of disjunctive feature sets rather than high-level binding? Participants detected an animal target in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) sequence and then reported its identity and location. They frequently failed to identify or to localize targets that they had correctly detected, suggesting that detection was based only on partial processing. Detection of targets was considerably worse in sequences that also contained humans, presumably because of shared features. When 2 targets were presented in RSVP, a prolonged attentional blink appeared that was almost eliminated when both targets were detected without being identified. The results suggest rapid feature analysis mediating detection, followed by attention-demanding binding for identification and localization.

show abstract

“…Participants might have remembered studied pictures by maintaining visual representations (coding visual properties such as shape, color, orientation, texture, and so on), by maintaining conceptual representations of picture identity (i.e., scene gist, such as bedroom), or by maintaining verbal descriptions of picture content. It is possible that these latter types of nonvisual representation, and not visual memory, accounted for observations of high-capacity, robust picture memory (Chun, 2003;Simons, 1996;Simons & Levin, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, the phenomenon of change blindness has been used to argue that scene representations in memory are primarily schematic and gist-based, retaining little, if any, specific visual information (Becker & Pashler, 2002;Irwin & Andrews, 1996;O'Regan, 1992;O'Regan & Nöe, 2001; O'Regan, Rensink, & Clark, 1999;Rensink, 2000;Rensink, O'Regan, & Clark, 1997;Simons, 1996;Simons & Levin, 1997;Wolfe, 1999). In change blindness studies, a change is introduced into a scene during some form of visual disruption, such as a saccadic eye movement (e.g., Grimes, 1996;Henderson & Hollingworth, 1999, 2003b or brief interstimulus interval (ISI; e.g., Rensink et al, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%