Question Details

[solution] » Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1998. 5 (4). 644-649 BRIEF

Brief item decscription

Step-by-step solution file


Item details:

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1998. 5 (4). 644-649 BRIEF
More:

Can you answer my question?

Read both articles attached, and then discuss the following:

  1. What is the purpose of the article?
  2. What are the methods used? 
  3. What are the primary results?
  4. What is the significance of the study?
  5. Provide a brief criticism of the study including proposals for future research.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

 

1998. 5 (4). 644-649 BRIEF REPORTS

 

Failure to detect changes to people

 

during a real-world interaction

 

DANIELJ. SIMONS Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

and

 

DANIELT. LEVIN Kent State University, Kent, Ohio

 

Recent research on change detection has documented surprising failures to detect visual changes occurring between views of a scene, suggesting the possibility that visual representations contain few details. Although these studies convincingly demonstrate change blindness for objects in still images and

 

motion pictures, they may not adequately assess the capacity to represent objects in the real world.

 

Here we examine and reject the possibility that change blindness in previous studies resulted from passive viewing of 2-Ddisplays. In one experiment, an experimenter initiated a conversation with a pedestrian, and during the interaction, he was surreptitiously replaced by a different experimenter. Only half

 

of the pedestrians detected the change. Furthermore, successful detection depended on social group

 

membership; pedestrians from the same social group as the experimenters detected the change but

 

those from a different social group did not. A second experiment further examined the importance of

 

this effect of social group. Provided that the meaning of the scene is unchanged, changes to attended

 

objects can escape detection even when they occur during a natural, real-world interaction. The discussion provides a set of guidelines and suggestions for future research on change blindness.

 

Despite our impression that we retain the visual details

 

of our surroundings from one view to the next, we are

 

surprisingly unable to detect changes to such details. Recently, experiments from a number of laboratories have

 

shown that people fail to detect substantial changes to photographs of objects and real-world scenes when the ability to detect retinal differences is eliminated (Blackmore,

 

Brelstaff, Nelson, & Troscianko, 1995; Grimes, 1996;

 

Henderson, 1997; McConkie & Currie, 1996; O'Regan,

 

Deubel, Clark, & Rensink, 1997; Pashler, 1988; Phillips,

 

1974; Rensink, O'Regan, & Clark, 1997; Simons, 1996;

 

for a review see Simons & Levin, 1997). That is, when

 

retinally localizable information signaling a change is

 

masked by an eye movement or a flashed blank screen,

 

observers have difficulty detecting changes to the visual The authors contributed equally to this report, and authorship order

 

was determined arbitrarily. Thanks to Leon Rozenblit, Carter Smith,

 

Julia Noland, and Joy Beck for helping to carry out the experiments and

 

to Linda Hermer for reading an earlier draft of the manuscript. DJ.S.

 

was supported by NSF and Jacob K. Javits fellowships, and parts of this

 

research appeared in his doctoral thesis. Correspondence should be addressed to D. J. Simons, Department of Psychology, Harvard University,

 

820 William James Hall, 33 Kirkland St., Cambridge, MA 02138 (email: [email protected]) or D. T. Levin, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242-000 I

 

(e-mail: [email protected]). Copyright 1998 Psychonomic Society, Inc. details of a scene. These findings of "change blindness"

 

suggest that observers lack a precise visual representation of their world from one view to the next. Although

 

we have known for some time that memory for scenes is

 

often distorted, sometimes quite sparse, subject to suggestions, and influenced by expectations and goals (Bartlett,

 

1932/1977; Brewer & Treyens, 1981; Loftus, 1979; Nickerson & Adams, 1979), studies of change blindness suggest that such details may not be retained even from one

 

instant to the next, a claim that is consistent with earlier

 

studies of the integration of information from successive

 

fixations (Bridgeman & Mayer, 1983; Dennett, 1991;

 

Hochberg, 1986; Irwin, 1991; McConkie & Currie, 1996;

 

Pashler, 1988; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1992).

 

Given the richness of our visual world, it is perhaps

 

unsurprising that we cannot represent all the visual details of every object and instead must focus on a few important objects. Recent models of attention have argued

 

that observers can fully represent the details of only a few

 

centrally attended objects in a scene. For example, models

 

based on object files (e.g., Treisman, 1993) suggest that

 

we can simultaneously represent several distinct objects

 

in our environment, updating our representations for

 

changes in their properties and features. Such models suggest the possibility that representations of centrally attended objects are relatively detailed even if those for peripheral objects are not. 644 CHANGE DETECTION A recent series of studies directly examined the role of

 

attention in the detection of changes to natural images

 

(Rensink et al., 1997). In their "flicker paradigm," an original version and a modified version of an image were presented in rapid alternation (240 msec each), with a blank

 

screen (80-msec duration) interposed between them, producing a flickering appearance. On each trial, subjects

 

were asked to identify the changing part of the image as

 

soon as they saw it. Consistent with earlier studies of integration across views (for a review, see Irwin, 1991), observers rarely noticed changes during the first cycle of

 

alternation and often required many cycles to detect the

 

change. The change detection process requires observers

 

to shift their attention among the objects in the scene, actively searching for a change. As predicted by models of

 

object files, changes to objects that independent raters

 

consider to be the center of interest of a scene are detected in significantly fewer alternations than changes to

 

peripheral objects. That is, changes to the details of attended objects are detected more readily.

 

Clearly, focused attention to an object is helpful and

 

possibly necessary for change detection, as evidenced by

 

such "center of interest" effects (O'Regan, Rensink, &

 

Clark, 1996; Rensink et aI., 1997; Tarr & Aginsky, 1996,

 

July) and by findings of more successful change detection

 

when explicit cues specify the location or the type of

 

change (Aginsky, Tarr, & Rensink, 1997). However, attention may not be sufficient for change detection. In fact,

 

observers often fail to detect changes even when attention is focused directly on the changing object (Levin &

 

Simons, 1997; O'Regan et al., 1997; Simons, 1996). In a

 

recent series ofstudies, we used motion pictures to directly

 

examine the ability to detect changes to attended objects

 

(Levin & Simons, 1997). These brief motion pictures depicted a simple action performed by a "single" actor. During the film, the actor was replaced by a different person.

 

For example, in one film an actor walked through an

 

empty classroom and began to sit in a chair. The camera

 

then changed, or "cut," to a closer view and a different

 

actor completed the action. Even though the actors were

 

easily discriminable and were the focus of attention, only

 

33% of the 40 participants reported noticing the change

 

from one actor to another (Levin & Simons, 1997).

 

Although the motion picture experiments demonstrate

 

that attention alone is not sufficient for a complete representation of the visual details of an object, they do not

 

fully assess our ability to represent objects in the real

 

world. Motion picture perception is similar in many ways

 

to perception in the real world, but motion pictures are

 

still a subset of a complete visual experience (Arnheim,

 

1933/1966). Most importantly, they are viewed passively

 

and may not completely engage the processes necessary

 

for a complete representation of attended objects. Furthermore, cuts from one view to another in motion pictures

 

may artificially hamper our ability to detect changes. Although cuts are similar in some ways to eye movements, 645 they also instantaneously change the simulated observation point. This artificial jump in viewing position may

 

somehow disrupt the ability to detect changes even if it

 

has little effect on our understanding of a scene. Similar

 

objections might be raised about most studies documenting change blindness (for a discussion, see Simons &

 

Levin, 1997). In all previous studies of change blindness,

 

exposure to scenes has been mediated via photographs,

 

computer displays, or television monitors. Perhaps people can more fully represent the details of a scene when

 

they are direct participants, interacting with the objects

 

in the real world.

 

Here we assess this possibility by taking the study of

 

change blindness into the real world. Rather than changing

 

the sole actor in a video, we changed the subjects' conversation partner during a typical daily interaction.

 

EXPERIMENT 1 In Experiment 1, we created a situation that allowed us

 

to surreptitiously substitute one individual for another in

 

the middle of a natural, real-world interaction. The situation we chose was asking directions of a pedestrian on

 

a college campus.' We temporarily interrupted this interaction by carrying a door between the experimenter and

 

the pedestrian. While the experimenter was occluded by

 

the door, another experimenter took his place and continued the interaction after the door had passed. If changedetection failures are based on the passive nature of mediated stimuli, these substitutions should be clearly

 

detectable.

 

Method

 

Subjects. A total of 15 pedestrians were approached on the campus

 

of Cornell University. They ranged in approximate age from 20 to 65.

 

Only pedestrians walking alone or together with one other person (two

 

cases) were approached.

 

Procedure. An experimenter carrying a campus map asked unsuspecting pedestrians for directions to a nearby building (see Figure la).

 

Pedestrians had a clear view of the experimenter starting from a distance of approximately 20 m as they walked down a sidewalk. After the

 

experimenter and pedestrian had been talking for 10-15 sec, two other

 

experimenters carrying a door rudely passed between them. As the door

 

passed, the first experimenter grabbed the back of the door. and the experimenter who had been carrying that part of the door stayed behind

 

and continued to ask for directions (Figure Ic). The first experimenter

 

kept his map during the interruption, and the second experimenter produced an identical copy of the map after the door passed. The door

 

blocked the pedestrian's view for approximately I sec (Figure Ib). From

 

the subject's perspective, the door briefly occluded his/her conversation

 

partner. and when it was gone, a different person was revealed. As the

 

door passed, subjects typically made eye contact with the second experimenter before continuing to give directions.? The entire interaction

 

took 2-5 min. The two experimenters wore different clothing and differed in height by approximately 5 cm (Figure Id). Their voices were

 

also clearly distinguishable.

 

After a pedestrian finished giving directions. the experimenter told

 

him/her, "We're doing a study as part of the psychology department [experimenter points to the psychology building next door] of the sorts of

 

things people pay attention to in the real world. Did you notice anything

 

unusual at all when that door passed by a minute ago?" Responses were 646 SIMONS AND LEVIN Figure 1. Frames from a video of a subject from Experiment 1. Frames a~ show the sequence ofthe switch. Frame d shows the two

 

experimenters side by side. noted by the experimenter. and if subjects failed to report the change,

 

they were directly asked. "Did you notice that I'm not the same person

 

who approached you to ask for directions?" After answering this question. all subjects were informed about the purpose of the experiment. Results and Discussion

 

If change blindness results from the passive nature of

 

mediated stimuli, then these real-world substitutions

 

should be detected, When asked if they had noticed anything unusual, most pedestrians reported that the people

 

carrying the door were rude. Yet,despite clear differences

 

in clothing, appearance, and voice, only 7 ofthe 15 pedestrians reported noticing the change of experimenters.

 

Those who did not notice the change continued the conversation as if nothing had happened (in fact, some

 

pedestrians who did notice the change also continued the

 

conversation!). Pedestrians who did not notice the change

 

were quite surprised to learn that the person standing in

 

front of them was different from the one who initiated

 

the conversation. One pedestrian who reported noticing nothing unusual nonetheless claimed to have noticed the

 

change when asked directly.

 

Interestingly, those who noticed the change were all

 

students of roughly the same age as the experimenters

 

(approximately 20~30 years old). Those who failed to

 

detect the change were slightly older than the experimenters (approximately 35-65 years old). One possible

 

explanation for this difference is that younger pedestrians were more likely to expend effort encoding those

 

features that would differentiate the experimenters because the experimenters were roughly of their own generation. In contrast, older pedestrians would likely encode the experimenters without focusing on features that

 

could differentiate the two of them, instead viewing them

 

as members of a social group other than their own. This

 

hypothesis draws on findings from social psychology

 

that members of one's own social group ("in-group") are

 

treated differently from members of social groups distinctly apart from one's own ("out-group"). Upon encountering a member of an in-group, people tend to focus at- CHANGE DETECTION 647 -~-- Figure 2. The experimenters dressed as construction workers for Experiment 2. tention on individuating features and to pay little attention

 

to the person's social-group membership. In contrast, for

 

members of out-groups, people direct more attention to

 

attributes associated with the out-group as a whole and

 

generally do not focus on features that distinguish one individual from others in the group (see, e.g., Rothbart &

 

John, 1985). These differences in processing of members

 

of in-groups and out-groups extend to many aspects of

 

cognition. For example, people are likely to assume that

 

members of out-groups are collectively less variable on a

 

variety oftraits and variables (Judd & Park, 1988; Linville,

 

Fischer, & Salovey, 1989). This tendency to code groupspecifying information for members of out-groups can

 

even determine what represents a visual feature for a particular category (Levin, 1996).

 

Applying these differences in the coding of in-groups

 

and out-groups to the findings of Experiment I, we hypothesize that the younger subjects considered themselves members of the same social group as the experimenters and older subjects considered the experimenters

 

to be members of an out-group. To test this hypothesis,

 

we changed the appearance of the experimenters so that

 

they could be classified as members of an out-group by

 

the younger subjects. EXPERIMENT 2

 

To examine the role of social group membership in the

 

detection of changes, a second experiment was conducted

 

using the same procedure as the first, but with one critical change: The same two experimenters dressed as construction workers (see Figure 2). The experimenters again wore different clothing: One wore a construction hat with

 

writing on the front, a large tool belt, and a light blue shirt,

 

and the other wore a newer hat without writing, no tool

 

belt, and a black shirt. The experiment was conducted in

 

the same location as Experiment 1, which happened to be

 

approximately 50 m from a construction site. As in Experiment I, an experimenter approached a pedestrian to

 

ask for directions to a building on campus. During the

 

conversation, the experimenters were switched. Unlike

 

in the first experiment, all 12 pedestrians who participated in Experiment 2 were from the younger age group

 

(Cornell graduate or undergraduate students), the group

 

that had always detected the change in Experiment 1.

 

The questions asked ofthe subjects were identical to those

 

of Experiment 1 except that subjects were informed immediately after providing directions that the experimenters

 

were not actually construction workers but were doing a

 

study as part of the psychology department. Results and Discussion

 

In contrast to the younger pedestrians in Experiment I,

 

all of whom noticed the change, only 4 of the 12 pedestrians in Experiment 2 reported noticing the switch when

 

asked if they had seen anything unusual. Five subjects

 

failed to report the change and were surprised to learn of

 

the switch. An additional 3 subjects reported noticing

 

nothing unusual but then claimed to have noticed the

 

switch of experimenters. Unlike pedestrians who clearly

 

noticed the change, these 3 pedestrians could not accurately describe any of the differences between the experimenters, suggesting that the demands of the task led

 

them to report noticing the change even though they prob- 648 SIMONS AND LEVIN ably had not. Thus, subjects from the same age group

 

that had successfully detected the change in Experiment I detected it only 33% of the time in Experiment 2.

 

When the experimenters appeared to be members of

 

an out-group, thereby decreasing the likelihood that students would code individuating features, the ability to

 

detect a change to the centrally attended object in a scene

 

was dramatically reduced. One subject who failed to detect the change essentially stated our predicted hypothesis: She said that she had just seen a construction worker

 

and had not coded the properties of the individual. That

 

is, she quickly categorized the experimenter as a construction worker and did not retain those features that

 

would allow individuation. Even though the experimenter

 

was the center of attention, she did not code the visual

 

details and compare them across views. Instead, she

 

formed a representation of the category, trading the visual

 

details of the scene for a more abstract understanding of

 

its gist or meaning. GENERAL DISCUSSION

 

These simple experiments build on classic findings offailures of eyewitness identification (e.g., Loftus, 1979) and distortions in memory

 

(Bartlett, 1932/1977) as well as recent demonstrations of change blindness for objects (Pashler, 1988; Phillips, 1974; Simons, 1996), photographs (Aginsky et al., 1997; Grimes. 1996; O'Regan et aI., 1996;

 

Rensink et aI., 1997), and motion pictures (Levin & Simons, 1997; Simons, 1996; Simons & Levin, 1997). Yet,unlike earlier demonstrations,

 

this experiment shows that people may not notice changes to the central

 

object in a scene even when the change is almost instantaneous and happens in the middle of an ongoing, natural event. Attention alone does

 

not suffice for change detection, even in the real world. Instead, successful change detection probably requires effortful encoding of precisely those features or properties that will distinguish the original from

 

the changed object.

 

One potential objection to our results derives from the pragmatics of

 

the interaction. Specifically, subjects may have detected the change but

 

the social demands of the situation precluded them from reporting it.

 

This possibility is substantially diminished by the subjects in each experiment who reported noticing nothing unusual but then reported

 

noticing the switch. Although these subjects probably did not notice the

 

change, the social demands of the situation encouraged them to report

 

having noticed the switch when asked directly. Thus, the demands of

 

the situation seem biased to increase reports of the switch rather than to

 

decrease them.

 

Another possible objection is that the task of giving directions distracted subjects from focusing their attention on the experimenters. That

 

is, subjects were focused on the map rather than their conversational

 

partner. Anecdotally at least, subjects appeared focused on the interaction and the conversation, often making eye contact with the experimenters, hearing their voices, and taking turns in a conversation. Although we believe the results are not specific to this situation, ongoing

 

experiments using a different type of interaction are directly examining

 

the possible distraction caused by the map and possible disruptions to

 

the representation of the first experimenter caused by the unusual nature of the interruption.

 

A more fundamental question involves assessing the similarity of the

 

experimenters. Clearly, no one would be surprised if pedestrians failed

 

to notice a substitution of identically dressed identical twins. The inability to notice small changes is unsurprising because such changes

 

naturally occur between views. For example, people rarely notice variation in the position and orientation of moveable objects such as body parts (Levin & Simons, 1997). If we constantly noticed such changes,

 

they would likely detract from our ability to focus on other, more important aspects of our visual world. Change detection as a method relies on the tendency of our visual system to assume an unchanging

 

world. The fact that we do not expect one person to be replaced by another during an interaction may contribute to our inability to detect such

 

changes. A critical question for future research is why some changes

 

are more likely to be detected than others. Clearly we would be quite

 

surprised ifsubjects missed a switch between enormously different people (e.g., a switch from a 4 ft 9 in. female of one race to a 6 ft 5 in. male

 

of another). The change in this case would alter not only the visual details of the person, but also their category membership. If, as suggested

 

by other recent findings of change blindness, we retain only abstracted

 

information and not visual details from one view to the next, changes

 

to category membership may well be detectable. Abstraction of category information is clearly central to coding other people (e.g., the effects of in-group and out-group discussed earlier) and may underlie the

 

representation of other objects across views as well.

 

What, then, separates inconsequential changes to details from

 

changes that are worth noting? Although there is no easy answer to this

 

question, we would like to propose several guidelines or heuristics for

 

identifying consequential changes for future studies of change blindness. These guidelines, used individually or together, can help constrain

 

the generation of significant changes to scenes.

 

First, significant changes to a scene should be easily verbalizable,

 

and often verbalized (see Simons, 1996). Changes that are easily verbalized likely cross a category boundary, making them more likely to be

 

detected. The best example of this principle is the change in the color

 

of the experimenter's shirt in Experiment 2. Both shirt colors (blue and

 

black) have basic color names.

 

Second, the original and changed objects should be easily discriminable in simultaneous viewing. Everyone is familiar with the comicspage game of finding differences between two extremely similar images. In such cases, the change is camouflaged, making it difficult to

 

detect even when both the original and changed version are present. In

 

our experiment, as in most studies of change blindness (see Simons &

 

Levin, 1997), changes generally meet this criterion (e.g., the difference

 

in shirt colors is plainly visible in Figure 2).

 

Third, changes should affect the immediate functional needs of the

 

perceiver. For example, changes to the spatial configuration of objects

 

or their parts can be significant, even if they are not easy to verbalize.

 

Spatial layout information is crucial to navigation and other immediate

 

needs of the organism. For our experiments, variation in the configuration of facial features is precisely the information used in identifying

 

other people; hence the person change should be readily detectable.

 

Fourth, naive subjects should predict successful change detection. If

 

change blindness is counterintuitive, we can be certain that the change is

 

not trivial. For our experiments, individuals unfamiliar with our research

 

consistently predicted that the change of experimenters would be plainly

 

detectable. To examine this possibility for our experiments, we informally

 

polled a class of 50 introductory psychology students by reading them

 

the following description of our event: "You are walking on the Cornell

 

campus and a man with a puzzled look asks you to help him find Olin library. Youstop and give him directions. While you are giving directions,

 

two people carrying a door rudely walk between you and the lost pedestrian. After the door has passed, the person you were giving directions to

 

is now a different person wearing different clothes." By a show of hands,

 

they claimed without exception that they would detect the change.

 

By applying these four heuristics, researchers can be fairly certain

 

that a change is detectable and that change blindness would be an important finding....

 







About this question:
STATUS
Answered
QUALITY
Approved
ANSWER RATING

This question was answered on: Feb 21, 2020

PRICE: $24

Solution~00066043980.zip (18.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $24

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card. All your purchases are securely protected by PayPal.
SiteLock

Need a similar solution fast, written anew from scratch? Place your own custom order

We have top-notch tutors who can help you with your essay at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments. This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student. New solution orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

Order Now