Simons and Chabris (1999) Visual inattention Flashcards

1
Q

Change blindness

A

Change in the participant’s visual stimulus is introduced and respondent does not notice it: particularly if those objects are not the centre of interest in the scene.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Inattentional blindness/ perceptual blindness (Mack and Rock 1998)

A

Where a person doesn’t see the new and unexpected event in their visual field, even if it appears at fixation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What causes the individual to miss unexpected, important things in their vicinity?

A

Excessive stimuli in their visual field

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the correlation between distractions and performance (concentration), in terms of inattentional blindness?

A

Negative correlation: as the ppt becomes increasingly blind to their distractions, their performance (concentration) improves

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Superimposition

A

the placing of one image on top of the other so you can see the second image through it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

BACKGROUND CONTEXT - Describe Neisser et al (1979) experiment

A
  • Observers had a task of focusing on a certain aspect of a dynamic visual scene whilst ignoring the others.
  • During the task, an unexpected event occurred (umbrella/gorilla)
  • 6 out of 28 of the observers did not see the unexpected event, but could see it when not engaged in the concurrent task.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How does Neisser et al (1979) experiment lead to Simon and Chabris’ further investigation on inattentional blindness?

A
  • Visually demanding tasks β€˜overload the brain with excessive stimuli: focus is heightened by ignoring irrelevant objects from the visual scene.
  • Simon and Chabris further investigated the phenomena through various variables that affect it via naturalistic, dynamic events.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the general aim for the study?

A

To examine inattentional blindness for complex objects and events in dynamic scenes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What were the other three aims associated to the general aim of the study?

A
  • To consider the role of task difficulty in detection
  • Superimposed version vs live version
  • To see whether the unusualness of the unexpected event has an effect on detection rates.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What type of experiment was used in the study?

A

Lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the experimental design used in this study?

A

Independent measures design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What were the IVs in the study?

A
  • Transparent Umbrella Woman/Gorilla condition
  • Opaque Umbrella Woman/Gorilla condition
    Four unexpected conditions + task difficulty conditions:
  • White easy/hard
  • Black easy/hard

Overall there was 16 conditions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

If the observers were given the easy or hard task, what did they have to do?

A

Easy: count the no. of bounce passes made by the attended team (white/black)
Hard: count the no. of bounce AND aerial passes made by the attended team (white/black)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the DV in the study?

A

How many ppts noticed the unexpected event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How many ppts were in the sample and who were they?

A

228 ppts (referred to as β€˜observers’) and they were all undergraduate students.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How was the sample collected?

A

Volunteer sampling:

  • without compensation
  • received a candy bar
  • paid a single fee in this, and another, unrelated experiment
17
Q

What were the controls of the study? (DESIGN - MATERIALS)

A
  • passing of basketball to team players in standardised order (P1 –> P2 –> P3 –> P1)
  • four video tapes, duration 75 seconds
  • passes either bounce or aerial passes + other typical movements i.e dribbling the ball
18
Q

At what time during the video did the unexpected event occur and how long did the unexpected event last for?

A

After 44-48 seconds the unexpected event occurred, lasting a duration of 5 seconds

18
Q

At what time during the video did the unexpected event occur and how long did the unexpected event last for?

A

After 44-48 seconds the unexpected event occurred, lasting a duration of 5 seconds

19
Q

What were the two styles of the video?

A
  • Transparent condition: each of the teams and the unexpected event were filmed separately, made partially transparent, then superimposed via digital software.
  • Opaque condition: all seven actors filmed simultaneously + rehearsal before filming to eliminate collisions.