Psychological Research

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 139–146 | Cite as

Setting sights higher: category-level attentional set modulates sustained inattentional blindness

  • Steven B. MostEmail author
Original Article


Previous research has shown that inattentional blindness is modulated by how people tune their “attentional set”: the more featurally similar the unexpected object is to what people are trying to attend, the more likely it is that they will notice it. The experiments in this paper show that people can also establish attentional sets based on semantic categories, and that these high-level attentional sets modulate sustained inattentional blindness. In “Experiment 1”, participants tracked four moving numbers and ignored four moving letters or vice versa, and the unexpected object was either a capital letter ‘E’ or its reverse, a block-like number ‘3’. Despite their featural similarity, participants were more likely to notice the unexpected object belonging to the same category as the tracked objects. “Experiment 2” replicated this effect in conditions where the unexpected object possessed a unique luminance and was less likely simply to be confused with other display items.


Semantic Category Critical Trial Conscious Perception Inattentional Blindness Display Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported in part by NIH Grant # 1 F32 MH066572-O1A1 to the author. Thanks to Brian Scholl for his programming expertise, as well as to Erin Carey, Adam Grant, Katie Rattray, Debby Rin, Jason Tajima, and David Widders for help in collecting data.


  1. Becklen, R., & Cervone, D. (1983). Selective looking and the noticing of unexpected events. Memory and Cognition, 11(6), 601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brand, J. (1971). Classification without identification in visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 178–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadbent, D. E. (1957). A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychological Review, 64(3), 205–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartwright-Finch, U., & Lavie, N. (2007). The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness. Cognition, 102, 321–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comtois, R. (2002). VisionShell PPC. [Software libraries]. Cambridge, MA: author.Google Scholar
  6. Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030–1044.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hurt, H. H., Ouellet, J. V., & Thom, D. R. (1981). Motorcycle accident cause factors and identification of countermeasures. (DOT HS 805 862). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.Google Scholar
  9. Koivisto, M., & Revonsuo, A. (2007). How meaning shapes seeing. Psychological Science, 18, 845–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luck, S. J., & Vecera, S. P. (2002). Attention. In H. Pashler & S. Yantis (Eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Volume 1. Sensation & Perception (3rd ed. ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Most, S. B. (2010). What’s “inattentional” about inattentional blindness? Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 1102–1104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Most, S. B., & Astur, R. S. (2007). Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. Visual Cognition, 15, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Most, S. B., Clifford, E. R., Scholl, B. J., & Simons, D. J. (2005). What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review, 112, 217–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Most, S.B., Simons, D.J., Scholl, B.J., & Chabris, C.F. (2000). Sustained inattentional blindness: The role of location in the detection of unexpected dynamic events. Psyche, 6(14),
  16. Most, S. B., Simons, D. J., Scholl, B. J., Jimenez, R., Clifford, E., & Chabris, C. F. (2001). How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science, 12(1), 9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neisser, U. (1979). The control of information pickup in selective looking. In A. D. Pick (Ed.), Perception and its development: A tribute to Eleanor J. Gibson (pp. 201–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Potter, M. C. (1975). Meaning in visual search. Science, 187, 965–966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 147–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations