attention: moray and simons & chabris Flashcards
moray method?
3 lab experiments
rmd, rmd, imd
moray experiment one iv and dv?
iv: origin of words in recognition test
dv: number of words recognised
moray experiment two iv and dv?
iv: whether instructions were prefixed by the P’s name
dv: number of effective instructions
moray experiment three iv and dv?
iv: instructions given to the Ps (either that they would be asked qs about shadowed message or to recall numbers)
dv: number of digits correctly reported
moray sample?
male & female undergraduates and research workers
expt 1 & 2: unknown
expt 3: 2 groups of 14
moray overall procedure?
all dichotic listening/shadowing tasks
taped messages with same male voice speaking at 130/150 words/min
moray experiment one procedure?
list of words in unattended each, repeated 35 times while shadowing prose
after, ps asked what they recalled from rejected message, then a recognition test, with 7 words from rejected, 7 from attended and 7 from neither
moray expt one results?
shadowed words: 4.9
rejected words: 1.9
new words: 2.6
moray expt two procedure?
used the affective cue of the Ps name
shadowed ten passages of light fiction, told responses would be recorded and they were to make as few mistakes as possible
passage started with p being asked to shadow right ear (in two of the ten trials, this was prefixed by saying they would later be told to change)
six passages had instructions embedded, three prefixed with name
moray expt two results?
most ignored instructions as thought they were meant to be distractions
ps most likely to hear instructions when warned, by name, at the beginning of the message
moray expt three procedure?
numbers always in shadowed message and some times in both
one group told they would be asked about shadowed passage, other told they would be asked for numbers
moray expt three results?
not significantly different
moray general conclusions?
when shadowing, almost all rejected content is blocked
block is apparent even when presented many times
subjectively important messages can penetrate block, but neutral material very hard to make important enough to penetrate
moray research method evaluation?
lab experiment, extraneous variables controlled
volume matched to Ps individual ears
name checked to make sure it wasn’t stressed
recording of messages made sure they were spoken at a constant speed without expression
moray data collected evaluation?
data only quantitative, easy comparisons between conditions
would be difficult to collection qualitative as process of blocking in unconcious
moray ethicality evaluation?
very ethical
ps able to practice shadowing task to eliminate stress
moray validity evaluation?
high internal validity due to control of extraneous variables
however ps may have responded to demand characteristics, helping hand (supposed to ignore rejected message)
ecological validity questionable as listening to two different sources with headphones is rare but act of blocking a message while simultaneous ones are presented is common
moray sampling bias evaluation?
students and researchers, convenient
males and females leads to wider generalisability
however students/researchers pre-selected on cognitive abilities so may not be representative of general population
moray link to theme?
links to theme of attention by providing empirical evidence into selective auditory attention, and shows that only important information such as a person’s name can break through the attentional barrier of attended and unattended message
also confirms cherry’s cocktail party effect
moray link to area?
assumption: behaviour is explained in terms of mental processes
studies the mental process of attention, and if unattended material can break through the attentional barrier
simons & chabris method?
lab expt w/ imd
simons & chabris ivs?
type of video watched, either:
opaque gorilla
transparent gorilla
opaque umbrella woman
transparent umbrella woman
task required, either:
hard white
easy white
hard black
easy black
total of 16 conditions
simons & chabris dv?
whether the p noticed the unexpected event
simons & chabris sample?
228 volunteers, mostly undergraduates
some had no payment, some had large candy bar and some had a lump sum for this and other studies
simons & chabris tape details?
all made with same camera
lasted 75 seconds, with 5 second unexpected event 44-48 seconds in
tall woman with umbrella or shorter woman in gorilla suit walking from left to right of film
two teams moved randomly in space, passing orange basketball (aerial and bounce passes)
simons & chabris procedure?
21 experimenters tested the Ps individually, using a script and protocol for delivering video and collecting data
tv monitors ranged from 13-36 inches
after task, Ps asked questions to expose if they had noticed the unexpected event
ps asked if they had heard of or been in experiments like this before
then debriefed and given the opportunity to rewatch video
simons & chabris tasks?
easy: follow either black or white teams passes, counting combined passes, silently
hard: follow either black or white teams passes, counting aerial and bounce passes separately, silently
simons & chabris questions?
while doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video?
did you notice anything other than the six players?
did you see anyone else (besides the six players) on the video?
did you see a gorilla/woman with an umbrella walk across the screen?
yes answers recorded
simons & chabris results?
36 ps results discarded (heard of inattentional blindness or lost count), but those left spread equally between conditions
54% noticed unexpected event, 46% did not overall
more likely to notice in opaque condition, 67%
more likely to notice doing easy task, 64%
more likely to notice umbrella woman, 65%
more likely to notice gorilla if attending black team
simons & chabris conclusions?
approximately half of ps fail to detect unexpected and unusual events when engaged in a different task of visual attention
while occurring in both superimposed and live action scenes, inattentional blindness is more common for the superimposed
more common in easy tasks
more likely to see unexpected events that are visually similar to what is being attended
objects can directly cross the area of focus but not be seen if they aren’t specifically being attended to
simons & chabris method evaluation?
lab expt, possible to control extraneous variables, timings of videos and unexpected events the same
scripted & rehearsed moves ensured similarity between teams
simons & chabris data collected evaluation?
quantitative only, from closed yes/no questions
easy comparisons between conditions
simons & chabris ethicality evaluation?
few ethical issues
ps provided consent by being volunteers, while not informed
task unlikely to cause stress, and had opportunity to rewatch the video
simons & chabris validity?
high internal validity, controlled extraneous variables (however screens an issue, 13-36 inches)
may have not reported that they’d seen similar videos, fabricated a number or lied about not seeing unexpected event due to demand characteristics
concurrent validity due to findings lining up with neisser’s study
although lacks ecological validity, videos aren’t the same as real life, counting passes non-typical attentional event, controlled setting unlike reality and a gorilla is very unexpected
simons & chabris sampling bias evaluation?
students convenient and allow for large sample
homogeneity (students who volunteered) of sample reduces participant variables but lowers generalisability
also may be particularly vigilant as students
simons & chabris link to theme?
links to theme of attention by studying how when attending a task, you can easily not notice something passing in front of you
the study provided empirical evidence for visual inattention in dynamic events
simons & chabris link to area?
assumption: all behaviour can be explained in terms of mental processes
attention is a mental process, and simons & chabris is studying how inattentional blindness can lead to a dynamic event being missed completely
moray and simons & chabris similarities?
both are highly controlled lab experiments
both only collected quantitative data
moray and simons & chabris differences?
simons & chabris only use imd, while moray also uses rmd for two experiments
simons & chabris presented ps with a single media, while moray presented two simultaneously
simons & chabris adding to understanding?
changes understanding of attention by showing it’s not just auditory material that can be filtered out, the principle of inattention also stands for visual attention
the finding are perhaps also more alarming, as a gorilla can pass right through your visual field, and be unaware of it
