17 found
Sort by:
  1. Lewis J. Baker & Daniel T. Levin (2015). The Role of Relational Triggers in Event Perception. Cognition 136:14-29.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Daniel T. Levin (2012). Concepts About Agency Constrain Beliefs About Visual Experience. Consciousness and Cognition 21 (2):875-888.
    Recent research exploring phenomena such as change blindness, inattentional blindness, attentional blink and repetition blindness has revealed a number of counterintuitive ways in which apparently salient visual stimuli often go unnoticed. In fact, large majorities of subjects sometimes predict that they would detect visual changes that actually are rarely noticed, suggesting that people have strong beliefs about visual experience that are demonstrably incorrect. However, for other kinds of visual metacognition, such as picture memory, people underpredict performance. This paper describes two (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Jonathan S. Herberg, Megan M. Saylor, Palis Ratanaswasd, Daniel T. Levin & D. Mitchell Wilkes (2008). Audience‐Contingent Variation in Action Demonstrations for Humans and Computers. Cognitive Science 32 (6):1003-1020.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Melissa R. Beck, Daniel T. Levin & Bonnie L. Angelone (2007). Change Blindness Blindness: Beliefs About the Roles of Intention and Scene Complexity in Change Detection. Consciousness and Cognition 16 (1):31-51.
    Observers have difficulty detecting visual changes. However, they are unaware of this inability, suggesting that people do not have an accurate understanding of visual processes. We explored whether this error is related to participants’ beliefs about the roles of intention and scene complexity in detecting changes. In Experiment 1 participants had a higher failure rate for detecting changes in an incidental change detection task than an intentional change detection task. This effect of intention was greatest for complex scenes. However, participants (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Melissa R. Beck, Daniel T. Levin & Bonnie L. Angelone (2007). Metacognitive Errors in Change Detection: Lab and Life Converge. Consciousness and Cognition 16 (1):58-62.
    Smilek, Eastwood, Reynolds, and Kingstone suggests that the studies reported in Beck, M. R., Levin, D. T. and Angelone, B. A. are not ecologically valid. Here, we argue that not only are change blindness and change blindness blindness studies in general ecologically valid, but that the studies we reported in Beck, Levin, and Angelone, 2007 are as well. Specifically, we suggest that many of the changes used in our study could reasonably be expected to occur in the real world. Furthermore, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Matthew Brown, Derek Besner, Daniel T. Levin & Donald A. Varakin (2004). Larry Cahill, Lukasz Gorski, Annabelle Belcher, and Quyen Huynh. The Influence of Sex Versus Sex-Related Traits on Long-Term. Consciousness and Cognition 13:212.
  7. Daniel T. Levin & D. Alexander Varakin (2004). No Pause for a Brief Disruption: Failures of Visual Awareness During Ongoing Events. Consciousness and Cognition 13 (2):363-372.
    Past research has repeatedly documented the close relationship between visual attention and awareness. Most recently, research exploring change blindness, inattentional blindness, repetition blindness, and the attentional blink has converged on the conclusion that attention to one aspect of a scene or event may lead to a highly circumscribed awareness of only the specific information attended, while other information, even that which is spatially or temporally nearby can go completely unnoticed. In the present report, we extend these observations to the dynamic (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Steve Mitroff, Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin (2004). Nothing Compares 2 Views: Change Blindness Results From Failures to Compare Retained Information. Perception and Psychophysics 66 (8):1268-1281.
  9. D. Alexander Varakin, Daniel T. Levin & Roger Fidler (2004). Unseen and Unaware: Implications of Recent Research on Failures of Visual Awareness for Human-Computer Interface Design. Human-Computer Interaction 19 (4):389-422.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Bonnie L. Angelone, Daniel T. Levin & Daniel J. Simons (2003). The Relationship Between Change Detection and Recognition of Centrally Attended Objects in Motion Pictures. Perception 32 (8):947-962.
  11. Daniel T. Levin (2002). Change Blindness Blindness as Visual Metacognition. Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (5-6):111-30.
    Many experiments have demonstrated that people fail to detect seemingly large visual changes in their environment. Despite these failures, most people confidently predict that they would see changes that are actually almost impossible to see. Therefore, in at least some situations visual experience is demonstrably not what people think it is. This paper describes a line of research suggesting that overconfidence about change detection reflects a deeper metacognitive error founded on beliefs about attention and the role of meaning as a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. 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.
    Recently, a number of experiments have emphasized the degree to which subjects fail to detect large changes in visual scenes. This finding, referred to as “change blindness,” is often considered surprising because many people have the intuition that such changes should be easy to detect. Levin, Momen, Drivdahl, and Simons documented this intuition by showing that the majority of subjects believe they would notice changes that are actually very rarely detected. Thus subjects exhibit a metacognitive error we refer to as (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Daniel T. Levin, Daniel J. Simons, Bonnie L. Angelone & Christopher Chabris (2002). Memory for Centrally Attended Changing Objects in an Incidental Real-World Change Detection Paradigm. British Journal of Psychology 93:289-302.
  14. Paul Skokowski, Daniel J. Simons, Christopher F. Chabris, Tatiana Schnur, Daniel T. Levin, Boris Kotchoubey, Andrea Kübler, Ute Strehl, Niels Birbaumer & Jürgen Fell (2001). Nachshon Meiran, Bernhard Hommel, Uri Bibi, and Idit Lev. Consciousness and Control in Task. Consciousness and Cognition 10:598.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Daniel T. Levin, Nausheen Momen, Sarah B. Drivdahl & Daniel J. Simons (2000). Change Blindness Blindness: The Metacognitive Error of Overestimating Change-Detection Ability. Visual Cognition 7 (1):397-412.
  16. Frank C. Keil, Daniel T. Levin, Bethany A. Richman & Grant Gutheil (1999). Mechanism and Explanation in the Development of Biological Thought: The Case of Disease. In D. Medin & S. Atran (eds.), Folkbiology. Mit Press.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin (1997). Change Blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (1):241-82.