Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 501–506 | Cite as

Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures

  • Daniel T. LevinEmail author
  • Daniel J. SimonsEmail author
Brief Reports


Our intuition that we richly represent the visual details of our environment is illusory. When viewing a scene, we seem to use detailed representations of object properties and interobject relations to achieve a sense of continuity across views. Yet, several recent studies show that human observers fail to detect changes to objects and object properties when localized retinal information signaling a change is masked or eliminated (e.g., by eye movements). However, these studies changed arbitrarily chosen objects which may have been outside the focus of attention. We draw on previous research showing the importance of spatiotemporal information for tracking objects by creating short motion pictures in which objects in both arbitrary locations and the very center of attention were changed. Adult observers failed to notice changes in both cases, even when the sole actor in a scene transformed into another person across an instantaneous change in camera angle (or “cut”).


Change Detection Object Property Motion Picture Camera Angle Spatiotemporal Information 
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.


  1. Blackmore, S. J., Brelstaff, G., Nelson, K., &Troscianko, T. (1995). Is the richness of our visual world an illusion? Transsaccadic memory for complex scenes.Perception,24, 1075–1081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridgeman, B., &Mayer, M. (1983). Failure to integrate visual information from successive fixations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,21, 285–286.Google Scholar
  3. Grimes, J. (1996). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. In K. Akins (Ed.),Perception (pp. 89–110). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hochberg, J. (1986). Representation of motion and space in video and cinematic displays. In K. R. Boff, R. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 1. Sensory processing and perception (pp. 22XXX1 to 22XXX64). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Intraub, H. (1981). Rapid conceptual identification of sequentially presented pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 604–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Irwin, D. E., Brown, J. S., &Sun, J. S. (1988). Visual masking and visual integration across saccadic eye movements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Irwin, D. E., Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1983). Evidence against visual integration across saccadic eye movements.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jonides, J., Irwin, D. E., &Yantis, S. (1983). Failure to integrate information from successive fixations.Science,222, 188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kuleshov, L. (1987).Lev Kuleshov: Fifty years in films. Moscow: Raduga. (Original work published 1920)Google Scholar
  10. McConkie, G. W., &Currie, C. B. (1996). Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McConkie, G. W., &Zola, D. (1979). Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading?Perception & Psychophysics,25, 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  13. O’Regan, J. K.,Rensink, R. A., &Clark, J. J. (1996). “Mud splashes” render picture changes invisible.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science,37, S213.Google Scholar
  14. Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Potter, M. C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Language & Memory,2, 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rensink, R. A.,O’Regan, J. K., &Clark, J. J. (1996). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes.Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science,37, S213.Google Scholar
  17. Simons, D. J. (1996). In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail.Psychological Science,7, 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spelke, E. S., Kestenbaum, R., Simons, D. J., &Wein, D. (1995). Spatiotemporal continuity, smoothness of motion and object identity in infancy.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,13, 113–142.Google Scholar
  19. Tarr, M., &Aginsky, V. (1996, July).From objects to scenes: Speculations on similarities and differences. Paper presented at the Scene Recognition Workshop, Max-Planck-Institut für Biologische Kybernetik, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  20. Xu, F., &Carey, S. (1996). Infants’ metaphysics: The case of numerical identity.Cognitive Psychology,30, 111–153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations