Question Change blindness is defined by Matlin as the failure to detect a change in an object or a scene and inattentional blindness is the failure to notice an unexpected and completely visible stimuli while focusing attention on other aspects in a scene (Matlin, 48). Simons and Chabris address the role similarity has between the unexpected and attended events with regard to detection (1999). Simons and Chabris are also looking at the frequency of strange or unusual instances being detected and the role of the difficulty of a task and the influence on detection (1999).
Predictions
Simons and Chabris's research builds on previous research studies conducted by Nessier et al (1999). Change blindness and inattentional blindness affect attention to a given stimulus which can lead to missing an unanticipated event. Visual similarity of the unexpected event to the primary event should make no difference in whether it is noticed or missed.
Subjects
There were a total of 228 participants, both male and female, and almost all of whom were undergraduate students. The participants were either volunteers without compensation or were given candy bars as compensation. A few participants went on as subjects in a larger study and were paid a single fee.
Method
The subjects are shown four videotapes recording six people playing basketball. Each team is either wearing black or white shirts. One of two events occurs at the halfway point of the video. Either a woman holding an open umbrella of a taller stature walks in front of the camera, left to right or a short woman in a gorilla suit walks in front of the camera in the same direction. Two styles of video were used; Transparent and Opaque. The Transparent video was edited to include all of the actors which had been filmed separately. The Opaque video had all of the actors filmed simultaneously. Each participant was tested individually and was assigned to one of four task conditions categorized as; White shirt and simple task, White shirt and difficult task, Black shirt and simple task, and Black shirt and difficult task. After viewing the video, participants were asked a group of questions as follows; While counting, was anything particulary strange happening in the video?, Other than the six players, were you aware of anything else going on in the video?, Other than the six players, was there anyone else who appeared in the video?, In the video, did you see either a woman carrying an umbrella or a gorilla walk across the scene? If the participants had participated in a similar study previously was asked of each participant where if they answered “yes”, they were replaced and their results thrown out. Results A total of 54% of participants were aware of the unexpected stimuli and 46% did not become aware of the unexpected stimuli. …show more content…
Less participants were aware of the stimuli in the Transparent condition (42%) than the Opaque condition (67%). Participants noticed the gorilla woman (44%) less often than the umbrella woman (65%). Nessier's research was contradicted by the results of this study which illustrated that participants were more inclined to become aware of an unexpected event with similar visual features as the event being observed. The correlations averaged r=0.15, a weak significance, across the fifteen conditions which suggests that counting poorly or inattention are not strongly related to noticing. Discussion/Summary The results of this
Predictions
Simons and Chabris's research builds on previous research studies conducted by Nessier et al (1999). Change blindness and inattentional blindness affect attention to a given stimulus which can lead to missing an unanticipated event. Visual similarity of the unexpected event to the primary event should make no difference in whether it is noticed or missed.
Subjects
There were a total of 228 participants, both male and female, and almost all of whom were undergraduate students. The participants were either volunteers without compensation or were given candy bars as compensation. A few participants went on as subjects in a larger study and were paid a single fee.
Method
The subjects are shown four videotapes recording six people playing basketball. Each team is either wearing black or white shirts. One of two events occurs at the halfway point of the video. Either a woman holding an open umbrella of a taller stature walks in front of the camera, left to right or a short woman in a gorilla suit walks in front of the camera in the same direction. Two styles of video were used; Transparent and Opaque. The Transparent video was edited to include all of the actors which had been filmed separately. The Opaque video had all of the actors filmed simultaneously. Each participant was tested individually and was assigned to one of four task conditions categorized as; White shirt and simple task, White shirt and difficult task, Black shirt and simple task, and Black shirt and difficult task. After viewing the video, participants were asked a group of questions as follows; While counting, was anything particulary strange happening in the video?, Other than the six players, were you aware of anything else going on in the video?, Other than the six players, was there anyone else who appeared in the video?, In the video, did you see either a woman carrying an umbrella or a gorilla walk across the scene? If the participants had participated in a similar study previously was asked of each participant where if they answered “yes”, they were replaced and their results thrown out. Results A total of 54% of participants were aware of the unexpected stimuli and 46% did not become aware of the unexpected stimuli. …show more content…
Less participants were aware of the stimuli in the Transparent condition (42%) than the Opaque condition (67%). Participants noticed the gorilla woman (44%) less often than the umbrella woman (65%). Nessier's research was contradicted by the results of this study which illustrated that participants were more inclined to become aware of an unexpected event with similar visual features as the event being observed. The correlations averaged r=0.15, a weak significance, across the fifteen conditions which suggests that counting poorly or inattention are not strongly related to noticing. Discussion/Summary The results of this