Graduate studies at Western
Visual Cognition 7 (1-3):127-145 (2000)
|Abstract||When brief blank fields are placed between alternating displays of an original and a modified scene, a striking failure of perception is induced: the changes become extremely difficult to notice, even when they are large, presented repeatedly, and the observer expects them to occur (Rensink, O'Regan, & Clark, 1997). To determine the mechanisms behind this induced "change blindness", four experiments examine its dependence on initial preview and on the nature of the interruptions used. Results support the proposal that representations at the early stages of visual processing are highly volatile, and that focused attention is needed to stabilize them sufficiently to support the perception of change.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ronald A. Rensink (2000). When Good Observers Go Bad: Change Blindness, Inattentional Blindness, and Visual Experience. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)] 6 (9).
Daniel J. Simons, Christopher Chabris & Tatiana Schnur (2002). Evidence for Preserved Representations in Change Blindness. Consciousness And Cognition 11 (1):78-97.
Ronald A. Rensink (2002). Change Detection. 53:245-277.
R. Rensink (2000). Visual Search for Change: A Probe Into the Nature of Attentional Processing. Visual Cognition 7:345-376.
Ronald A. Rensink (2000). Seeing, Sensing, and Scrutinizing. Vision Research:469-1487.
Ronald A. Rensink, J. Kevin O'Regan & James J. Clark (1997). To See or Not to See: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes. Psychological Science 8:368-373.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #24,419 of 739,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,476 of 739,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?