References in periodicals archive ?
My presentation was based on change blindness and inattentional blindness.
Laney and Loftus (2010) made a strong case for conducting research that combines IB and change blindness (CB) with eyewitness memory.
Unlike previous research in which scientists studied change blindness by manually manipulating such pictures and making decisions about what to change, the computer model used in this study eliminated human bias.
Two other phenomena that relate to visual cognition and are highly relevant to our group leaders are change blindness and inattentional blindness.
Recent studies on change blindness have shed light on the understanding of visual attention.
Demonstrations of change blindness, which is the failure to notice large changes across different views of a scene, produce similar results.
This phenomenon, known as change blindness, shows we take in far less than our eyes actually see.
Evidence that bottom-up processes are important in visual processing has also been provided both in conjunction searches (Sobel & Cave, in press) and in the context of a recently discovered phenomenon strongly related to the attentional capture research field, that is Change Blindness (Simons, 2000).
Davis, Loftus, Vanous, and Cucciare (2007) demonstrated the relevance of IB and the related phenomenon of change blindness in a surveillance video scenario and Laney and Loftus (2010) called for more cross-paradigm research combining change blindness and IB with eyewitness testimony research.
Well, then such ignorance to what should be apparent is something we all go through, and it is called change blindness.
The current study reports two change blindness experiments that aim to investigate the selection of objects from a complex scene for focused attention, and specifically the effects of semantic and contextual information on this selection process in people with ASD.
Even seemingly obvious changes can thus fail to reach awareness, a phenomenon known as change blindness (Simons & Levin, 1997).