32 found
See also
Daniel Simons
University of Manchester
  1. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events.Daniel J. Simons & Christopher Chabris - 1999 - Perception 28 (9):1059-1074.
  2. Change blindness: Past, present, and future. [REVIEW]Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink - 2005 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):16-20.
    Change blindness is the striking failure to see large changes that normally would be noticed easily. Over the past decade this phenomenon has greatly contributed to our understanding of attention, perception, and even consciousness. The surprising extent of change blindness explains its broad appeal, but its counterintuitive nature has also engendered confusions about the kinds of inferences that legitimately follow from it. Here we discuss the legitimate and the erroneous inferences that have been drawn, and offer a set of requirements (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   118 citations  
  3. Change blindness.Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin - 1997 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (1):241-82.
  4. What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness.Steven B. Most, Brian J. Scholl, Erin R. Clifford & Daniel J. Simons - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (1):217-242.
  5. Current approaches to change blindness.Daniel J. Simons - 2000 - Visual Cognition 7:1-15.
  6. Attentional capture and inattentional blindness.Daniel J. Simons - 2000 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (4):147-155.
  7. Change blindness blindness: The metacognitive error of overestimating change-detection ability.Daniel T. Levin, Nausheen Momen, Sarah B. Drivdahl & Daniel J. Simons - 2000 - Visual Cognition 7 (1):397-412.
  8. Change blindness in the absence of a visual disruption.Daniel J. Simons, Steven Franconeri & Rebecca Reimer - 2000 - Perception 29 (10):1143-1154.
  9. Evidence for preserved representations in change blindness.Daniel J. Simons, Christopher Chabris & Tatiana Schnur - 2002 - Consciousness and Cognition 11 (1):78-97.
    People often fail to detect large changes to scenes, provided that the changes occur during a visual disruption. This phenomenon, known as ''change blindness,'' occurs both in the laboratory and in real-world situations in which changes occur unexpectedly. The pervasiveness of the inability to detect changes is consistent with the theoretical notion that we internally represent relatively little information from our visual world from one glance at a scene to the next. However, evidence for change blindness does not necessarily imply (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  10.  32
    Active and passive scene recognition across views.Ranxiao Frances Wang & Daniel J. Simons - 1999 - Cognition 70 (2):191-210.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  11.  20
    An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: the insides story.Daniel J. Simons & Frank C. Keil - 1995 - Cognition 56 (2):129-163.
  12. Memory for centrally attended changing objects in an incidental real-world change detection paradigm.Daniel T. Levin, Daniel J. Simons, Bonnie L. Angelone & Christopher Chabris - 2002 - British Journal of Psychology 93:289-302.
  13.  34
    The siren song of implicit change detection.Stephen R. Mitroff, Daniel J. Simons & Steven Franconeri - 2002 - Journal Of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception And Performance 28 (4):798-815.
  14. The relationship between change detection and recognition of centrally attended objects in motion pictures.Bonnie L. Angelone, Daniel T. Levin & Daniel J. Simons - 2003 - Perception 32 (8):947-962.
  15. Sustained inattentional blindness: The role of location in the detection of unexpected dynamic events.Steve Most, Daniel J. Simons, Brian J. Scholl & Christopher Chabris - 2000 - PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research On Consciousness 6.
    Attempts to understand visual attention have produced models based on location, in which attention selects particular regions of space, and models based on other visual attributes . Previous studies of inattentional blindness have contributed to our understanding of attention by suggesting that the detection of an unexpected object depends on the distance of that object from the spatial focus of attention. When the distance of a briefly flashed object from both fixation and the focus of attention is systematically varied, detection (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  16. Changes are not localized before they are explicitly detected.Stephen R. Mitroff & Daniel J. Simons - 2000 - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 41 (4).
  17.  8
    Moving and looming stimuli capture attention.Steve Franconeri & Daniel J. Simons - 2003 - Perception and Psychophysics 65 (7):999-1010.
  18. Behavioral, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological approaches to implicit perception.Daniel J. Simons, Deborah E. Hannula, David E. Warren & Steven W. Day - 2007 - In Philip David Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch & Evan Thompson (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Nothing compares 2 views: Change blindness results from failures to compare retained information.Steve Mitroff, Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin - 2004 - Perception and Psychophysics 66 (8):1268-1281.
  20. Change blindness, representations, and consciousness: Reply to Noe.Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink - 2005 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (5):219.
    Our recent opinion article [1] examined what change blindness can and cannot tell us about visual representations. Among other things, we argued that change blindness can tell us a lot about how visual representations can be used, but little about their extent. We and others found the ‘sparse representations’ view appealing (and still do), and initially made the overly strong claim that change blindness supports the conclusion of sparse representations [2,3]. We wrote our article because change blindness continues to be (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  21.  8
    Does working memory capacity predict cross-modally induced failures of awareness?Carina Kreitz, Philip Furley, Daniel J. Simons & Daniel Memmert - 2016 - Consciousness and Cognition 39 (C):18-27.
  22. Attention capture, orienting, and awareness.Steven B. Most & Daniel J. Simons - 2001 - In Charles L. Folk & Bradley S. Gibson (eds.), Attraction, Distraction and Action: Multiple Perspectives on Attentional Capture. Advances in Psychology. Elsevier. pp. 151-173.
  23.  41
    Induced failures of visual awareness.Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink - 2003 - Journal of Vision 2 (3).
    Research over the past half century has produced extensive evidence that observers cannot report or retain all of the details of their visual world from one moment to the next. During the past decade, a new set of studies has illustrated just how pervasive these limits are. For example, early evidence for the failure to detect changes to simple dot patterns (Phillips, 1974) and arrays of letters (Pashler, 1988) generalizes to more naturalistic displays such as photographs and motion pictures (e.g., (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24.  38
    Change blindness, Gibson, and the sensorimotor theory of vision.Brian J. Scholl & Daniel J. Simons - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):1004-1006.
    We suggest that the sensorimotor “theory” of vision is really an unstructured collection of separate ideas, and that much of the evidence cited in its favor at best supports only a subset of these ideas. As an example, we note that work on change blindness does not “vindicate” (or even speak to) much of the sensorimotor framework. Moreover, the ideas themselves are not always internally consistent. Finally, the proposed framework draws on ideas initially espoused by James Gibson, but does little (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  25. Change detection, attention, and the contents of awareness.Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink - 2000 - Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2):S18 - S19.
  26. Nachshon Meiran, Bernhard Hommel, Uri Bibi, and Idit Lev. Consciousness and Control in Task.Paul Skokowski, Daniel J. Simons, Christopher F. Chabris, Tatiana Schnur, Daniel T. Levin, Boris Kotchoubey, Andrea Kübler, Ute Strehl, Niels Birbaumer & Jürgen Fell - 2001 - Consciousness and Cognition 10:598.
    Export citation  
  27.  35
    Perception versus inference.Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink - 2005 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):16-20.
  28. Scene perception: What we can learn from visual integration and change detection.Daniel J. Simons, Steve Mitroff & Steve Franconeri - 2003 - In Michael L. Peterson & G. Rhodes (eds.), Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes (335-355). Oxford University Press.
    Export citation  
  29.  9
    Constraints on generality statements are needed to define direct replication.Daniel J. Simons, Yuichi Shoda & D. Stephen Lindsay - 2018 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
  30.  5
    Links between neuroticism, emotional distress, and disengaging attention: Evidence from a single-target RSVP task.Keith Bredemeier, Howard Berenbaum, Steven B. Most & Daniel J. Simons - 2011 - Cognition and Emotion 25 (8):1510-1519.
  31.  6
    Everyday planning: An analysis of daily time management.Daniel J. Simons & Kathleen M. Galotti - 1992 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30 (1):61-64.
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
  32.  8
    Searching for stimulus-driven shifts of attention.Steve Franconeri, Daniel J. Simons & J. Junge - 2004 - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11 (5):876-881.