David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Vision Research:469-1487 (2000)
Large changes in a scene often become difficult to notice if made during an eye movement, image flicker, movie cut, or other such disturbance. It is argued here that this _change blindness_ can serve as a useful tool to explore various aspects of vision. This argument centers around the proposal that focused attention is needed for the explicit perception of change. Given this, the study of change perception can provide a useful way to determine the nature of visual attention, and to cast new light on the way that it is?and is not?involved in visual perception. To illustrate the power of this approach, this paper surveys its use in exploring three different aspects of vision. The first concerns the general nature of _seeing_. To explain why change blindness can be easily induced in experiments but apparently not in everyday life, it is proposed that perception involves a _virtual representation_, where object representations do not accumulate, but are formed as needed. An architecture containing both attentional and nonattentional streams is proposed as a way to implement this scheme. The second aspect concerns the ability of observers to detect change even when they have no visual experience of it. This _sensing_ is found to take on at least two forms: detection without visual experience (but still with conscious awareness), and detection without any awareness at all. It is proposed that these are both due to the operation of a nonattentional visual stream. The final aspect considered is the nature of visual attention itself?the mechanisms involved when _scrutinizing_ items. Experiments using controlled stimuli show the existence of various limits on visual search for change. It is shown that these limits provide a powerful means to map out the attentional mechanisms involved.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Victor A. F. Lamme (2003). Why Visual Attention and Awareness Are Different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (1):12-18.
Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):16-20.
Brian Scholl (2001). Objects and Attention: The State of the Art. Cognition 80 (1-2):1-46.
David Melcher & Carol L. Colby (2008). Trans-Saccadic Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12 (12):466-473.
Jon Driver, Greg Davis, Charlotte Russell, Massimo Turatto & Elliot Freeman (2001). Segmentation, Attention and Phenomenal Visual Objects. Cognition 80 (1-2):61-95.
Similar books and articles
Diego Fernandez-Duque, Giordana Grossi, Ian Thornton & Helen Neville (2003). Representation of Change: Separate Electrophysiological Markers of Attention, Awareness, and Implicit Processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (4):491-507.
Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Change Blindness. In Laurent Itti, Geraint Rees & John K. Tsotsos (eds.), Neurobiology of Attention. Academic Press 76--81.
[author unknown] (2004). Research Article. Minds and Machines 10 (4):583-584.
Ronald A. Rensink, Kevin J. O'Regan & James J. Clark (2000). On Failures to Detect Changes in Scenes Across Brief Interruptions. Visual Cognition 7 (1-3):127-145.
Diego Fernandez-Duque & Ian Thornton (2000). Change Detection Without Awareness: Do Explicit Reports Underestimate the Representation of Change in the Visual System? Visual Cognition 7 (1):323-344.
R. Rensink (2000). Visual Search for Change: A Probe Into the Nature of Attentional Processing. Visual Cognition 7:345-376.
Ronald A. Rensink (2002). Change Detection. Philosophical Explorations 53:245-277.
Daniel T. Levin, Sarah B. Drivdahl, Nausheen Momen & Melissa R. Beck (2002). False Predictions About the Detectability of Visual Changes: The Role of Beliefs About Attention, Memory, and the Continuity of Attended Objects in Causing Change Blindness Blindness. Consciousness and Cognition 11 (4):507-527.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads82 ( #57,908 of 1,932,535 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #87,932 of 1,932,535 )
How can I increase my downloads?