Current Psychology

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 337–348 | Cite as

How Stimulus Variables Combine to Affect Change Blindness

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Change blindness is the inability to detect changes that occur in a scene, when the scene is briefly obscured while the change happens. It has been found to occur during driving simulations and computer use for example. Scene-Complexity, stimulus On-Time and time for which a scene is obscured can all affect our ability to detect changes (or change blindness). In most studies parameters have been selected to induce change blindness with little consideration of the extent to which change blindness might be induced. There is however evidence that variables that describe the visual scene can affect likelihood of detecting changes (Rensink Visual Cognition 7:345–376, 2000). These effects have in this paper been explored in combination. Increasing Scene-Complexity, decreasing stimulus On-Time and increasing the duration for which a scene is obscured all increase change blindness but they all interact to further increase the likelihood of changes being missed. In order to reduce change blindness in a changing scene, all the variables need to be considered.

Keywords

Change blindness On-Time Inter Stimulus Interval Scene Complexity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beck, M., & Levin, D. (2003). The role of representational volatility in recognising pre- and postchange objects. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(3), 458–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, D., Rees, G., Frith, C., & Lavie, N. (2001). Neural correlates of change detection and change blindness. Nature Neuroscience, 4(6), 645–650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahaene, S., Changeux, J., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(5), 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gregory, R. (1974). Concepts and mechanisms of perception. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  5. Henderson, J., & Hollingworth, A. (2003). Global transsaccadic change blindness during scene perception. Psychological Science, 14(5), 493–497.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones, B. T., Jones, B. C., Smith, H., & Copley, N. (2003). A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing bias in social users. Addiction, 98, 235–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. (2006). Culture and change blindness. Cognitive Science, 30, 381–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Norvilas, A., & Mackey, T. (2005). Detection of change: Role of stimulus type verses stimulus complexity. Psichologija, 32, 16–21.Google Scholar
  10. O’Regan, J., Rensink, R., & Clark, J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of “mudsplashes”. Nature, 398(6722), 34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rensink, R. (2000). Visual search for change: A probe into the nature of attentional processing. Visual Cognition, 7(1/2/3), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rensink, R. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rensink, R., O’Regan, J., & Clark, J. (2000). On the failure to detect changes in a scene across brief interruptions. Visual Cognition, 7(1/2/3), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scholl, B. (2000). Attenuated change blindness for exogenously attended items in a flicker paradigm. Visual Cognition, 7(1/2/3), 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simons, D., Franconeri, S., & Reimer, R. (2000). Change blindness in the absence of visual disruption. Perception, 29, 1143–1154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Werner, S., & Thies, B. (2000). Is “change blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novice comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7(1/2/3), 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zelinsky, G. (2001). Eye movements during change detection: Implications for search constraints, memory limitations and scanning strategies. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(2), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied PsychologyCardiff Metropolitan UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Scopis GmbHBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations