Attention To Perceive Changes In Scenes: Scene Analysis

In experiment 1, participants were instructed to press a key to determine if the stimulus was red, blue, yellow, or green. On the second half of the experiment, the stimulus appeared in grey with only one colored letter which was positioned randomly. Error rates for the experiment were below 2.5% for each condition, which is quite low. Experiment 2 was the same as experiment 1 except that there were 114 data collections instead of 288 and there were 36 practice trials instead of 72. According to experiment 1 and 2 it is suggested that the effect of

Koivisto and Revonsuo did an experiment that shows that when someone is focused on one thing they will not see the other thing that is going on in the same direction. Koivisto and Revonsuo wrote, “When participants are attending to a subset of visual targets or events and ignoring irrelevant distractors (‘‘selective looking’’), they often fail to detect the appearance of an unexpected visual object or event even when the object is visible for several seconds (‘‘sustained

The purpose of the study was to measure the effect that the Flicker Paradigm had on visual perception. The Flicker Paradigm causes a distraction while there is a change made in the image. It was designed to test how long the groups took to react to a change in the visual field. The test is meant to show that the disturbance in the visual field made it much more challenging for the viewer to notice any changes that were made in the image. The hypothesis stated that the experimental group, the group using the Flicker Paradigm, would take longer to notice the change in the visual field than the control group, which had no flicker between the altered images. This is because the disturbance in the visual field caused the brain to miss the change that was made to the image because the information was deemed as unimportant. The majority of the perceived changes occurred in the background of the scene, and were considered minor in reference to the whole scene. This was proven true from the data collected, and coincided with previous tests. (Rensink, R. A. 2000). The data in tables 1.1 and 1.3 shows the individual participant data for the test with a flicker for both tests one and two. Tables 1.2 and 1.4 represent the individual results for the tests with no flicker, or the control group. Graphs 1.1 and 1.2 showed the relationship between the time taken to recognize alterations in the images. The data was taken from the average time to recognize the change from all

This study examined visual perception and the rates at which global and local features are reacted to with an aim of replicating and validating a previous experiment conducted by Navon (1977) to see if global processing was faster than local processing. There was 222 University of Newcastle students participating in the experiment, partaking in two phases, one centred round global processing, the other around local processing, where there reaction times were recorded using a computer program and imputed into a data worksheet. Results indicated that, as predicted, global processing occurred at a faster rate than local processing. It was concluded that global features were

Powell (1986) conducted a study in which individuals viewed a photo or slide. Individuals were required to scan images and decide on an image for the entire display (Powell, 1986). Objects were pointed to, and subjects were asked to identify its location (Powell, 1986). The subject was asked to close his or her eyes and were shown another image. The subjects were to decide if the object was in the correct position (Powell, 1986). The subjects would hear one of the objects and was required to focus on the object while keeping the entire image in his or her mind (Powell, 1986). When the next object was identified, the subjects were to move from the first object to the second watching a black dot moving in a straight line (Powell, 1986).

The concept of change blindness has been addressed over the course of nearly half a century, with increasing focus on the subject throughout the past five years (3). Although biologists, psychologists, and philosophers have yet to resolve definitively the paradox of looking without seeing, the investigation of each theory on the matter yields deeper insight into visual perception and sight as well as a decreasingly incorrect understanding of those components of the nervous system, which are crucial for visual cognition. Under normal viewing conditions, changes produce transient signals that can draw attention. Change blindness studies are designed to eliminate or block these transient signals by inserting a visual disruption when the change occurs (3). Flicker Paradigm studies examine the occurrence of change blindness and attempt to explain the inability to not see that which is directly in front of our eyes. The Flicker Paradigm demonstrates the essentiality of attention in the process of seeing (4). The alternation of an object and a modified version of that same object is interrupted by millisecond flashes of blank space. Subjects are then asked to report changes in the images.

Luck and Vogel's change detection experiment was made to determine exactly how much information can a person withhold from a quick flash of stimulus. They modified the previous change dtetction experiment alittle. Rather than asking the person if there was a change in the display only, they also ask the person to recall the amount of items

Researchers do differ on their perspectives on change blindness depending upon their method approach and background or field; however literature is largely in an agreed consensus as to what change blindness is and its effects on attention. Change blindness is studied by using the methodology of change detection, which is where participants are shown two stimuli that are

In previous research, it has been claimed that that ordinary perceivers operate under a grand illusion of perception, and illusion that can be unmasked by change blindness and inattentional blindness. Change blindness and inattentional blindness are phenomena relating to the inability to notice particular stimuli within our visual field, a sort of lapse in our visual system. Change blindness is when a person fails to notice a change within their visual scene because the change occurs during a moment when the intake of visual stimuli is disrupted. Similar to change blindness, inattentional blindness is characterized by the failure to notice a fully visible, but unexpected object because attention is engaged in another object, task, or event. Cohen

In the flicker paradigm, an original image, a blank gray screen, and a modified image are presented respectively in a fast alternation, giving the display a flickering appearance. The cycle of rotation repeats until subjects report the change. The response latency is used as a measure of change blindness. The results showed that the change detection during the first cycle of alternation was almost zero and did not increase too much after one minute of alternation. Interestingly, when the blank gray screen was removed, the changes were detected easily.

In Dretske's paper over "what change blindness teaches about consciousness," I think one of the most important ideas pointed out is that what is in question is not what the person thinks they saw or were aware of, but what they actually were aware of. This is really hard to test and get results on accurately.

Perception affect how we see yourself and the world around us. “If you change the way look at things, the things you look at change”(unknown). This quote tells why we should look with a open mind, not a mind that shuts things out. This is about your perception, and how we see the world through our eyes.

Three things were concluded from this experiment. First, picture rotations took longer to perform than letter rotations. Second, there were no sex differences in reaction times for either stimulus presented, and third, there was a linear increase in reaction times as angular disparity of both stimuli sets increased (Desrocher, smith & Taylor, 1995).

79). They go on to mention that the reason cited most often as reason for change blindness is that the second scene overwrites the first scene, from the 2000 study from Enns & Di Lollo. Even though “people can monitor between one and four items for change”(Luck & Vogel, 1997), Treisman & Gelade in 1980 said that attention is needed to bind features to objects and Resnick (2000) said that we needed that attention to “encode a coherent representation”. Even then, Resnick says those representations are “highly volatile” can be overwritten with new information

Perception is something that I find really interesting. One of the biggest reason is because it is created by all of our senses and by our memory of our experiences. These are all things that are slightly different for everyone and seems to create infinite possibilities. I am an amateur artist and while in an art class one of our takes were to create a drawing only using straight lines of any thickness. Some of the drawings started to take on different images based on the angle you were looking at the picture. Once I saw an image it was harder to try to see a different image since I already knew what to expect to see. This is an example of how the top-down process allows your memory and expectations to interfere with our perception of what was drawn on the page.