David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Visual Cognition 7:345-376 (2000)
A set of visual search experiments tested the proposal that focused attention is needed to detect change. Displays were arrays of rectangles, with the target being the item that continually changed its orientation or contrast polarity. Five aspects of performance were examined: linearity of response, processing time, capacity, selectivity, and memory trace. Detection of change was found to be a self-terminating process requiring a time that increased linearly with the number of items in the display. Capacity for orientation was found to be about 5 items, a value comparable to estimates of attentional capacity. Observers were able to filter out both static and dynamic variations in irrelevant properties. Analysis also indicated a memory for previously-attended locations. These results support the hypothesis that the process needed to detect change is much the same as the attentional process needed to detect complex static patterns. Interestingly, the features of orientation and polarity were found to be handled in somewhat different ways. Taken together, these results not only provide evidence that focused attention is needed to see change, but also show that change detection itself can provide new insights into the nature of attentional processing.
|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
Peter U. Tse (2004). Mapping Visual Attention with Change Blindness: New Directions for a New Method. Cognitive Science 28 (2):241.
Amanda E. van Lamsweerde & Melissa R. Beck (2011). The Change Probability Effect: Incidental Learning, Adaptability, and Shared Visual Working Memory Resources. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (4):1676-1689.
Similar books and articles
Ronald A. Rensink (2002). Change Detection. 53:245-277.
Ian Thornton & Diego Fernandez-Duque (2000). An Implicit Measure of Undetected Change. Spatial Vision 14 (1):21-44.
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.
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, 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.
Patrick Wilken (2001). Capacity Limits for the Detection and Identification of Charge: Implications for Models of Visual Short-Term Memory. Dissertation, The University of Melbourne
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 (2000). Seeing, Sensing, and Scrutinizing. Vision Research:469-1487.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #63,112 of 1,098,599 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #26,702 of 1,098,599 )
How can I increase my downloads?