31 found
See also:
Profile: Daniel Simons (University of Manchester)
Profile: Daniel Simons (University of Manchester)
  1.  65
    Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future. 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 (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   61 citations  
  2. Daniel J. Simons & Christopher Chabris (1999). Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events. Perception 28 (9):1059-1074.
  3. Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin (1997). Change Blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (1):241-82.
  4.  77
    Steve Most, Brian J. Scholl, E. Clifford & Daniel J. Simons (2005). What You See is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness and the Capture of Awareness. Psychological Review 112 (1):217-242.
  5.  64
    Daniel J. Simons (2000). Current Approaches to Change Blindness. Visual Cognition 7:1-15.
  6. Daniel J. Simons, Steven Franconeri & Rebecca Reimer (2000). Change Blindness in the Absence of a Visual Disruption. Perception 29 (10):1143-1154.
  7. Daniel J. Simons (2000). Attentional Capture and Inattentional Blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (4):147-155.
  8.  62
    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.
  9. Daniel J. Simons, Christopher Chabris & Tatiana Schnur (2002). Evidence for Preserved Representations in Change Blindness. 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 (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  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.  4
    Daniel J. Simons & Frank C. Keil (1995). An Abstract to Concrete Shift in the Development of Biological Thought: The Insides Story. Cognition 56 (2):129-163.
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  12.  26
    Stephen R. Mitroff, Daniel J. Simons & Steven Franconeri (2002). The Siren Song of Implicit Change Detection. Journal Of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception And Performance 28 (4):798-815.
  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. Steve Most, Daniel J. Simons, Brian J. Scholl & Christopher Chabris (2000). Sustained Inattentional Blindness: The Role of Location in the Detection of Unexpected Dynamic Events. Psyche 6 (14).
    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 (...)
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  15. Daniel J. Simons, Deborah E. Hannula, David E. Warren & Steven W. Day (2007). Behavioral, Neuroimaging, and Neuropsychological Approaches to Implicit Perception. In Philip David Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch & Evan Thompson (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16.  3
    Steve Franconeri & Daniel J. Simons (2003). Moving and Looming Stimuli Capture Attention. Perception and Psychophysics 65 (7):999-1010.
  17.  32
    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.
  18. Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Change Blindness, Representations, and Consciousness: Reply to Noe. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (5):219.
  19. Stefanie Hüttermann, Daniel Memmert & Daniel J. Simons (2014). The Size and Shape of the Attentional “Spotlight” Varies with Differences in Sports Expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 20 (2):147-157.
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20.  60
    Stephen R. Mitroff & Daniel J. Simons (2000). Changes Are Not Localized Before They Are Explicitly Detected. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 41 (4).
  21.  11
    Ranxiao Frances Wang & Daniel J. Simons (1999). Active and Passive Scene Recognition Across Views. Cognition 70 (2):191-210.
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  22.  23
    Brian J. Scholl & Daniel J. Simons (2001). Change Blindness, Gibson, and the Sensorimotor Theory of Vision. 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 (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  23.  11
    Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Perception Versus Inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):16-20.
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  24.  29
    Daniel J. Simons & Ron Rensink (2003). Induced Failures of Visual Awareness. Journal of Vision 2 (3).
  25.  17
    Daniel J. Simons, Steve Mitroff & Steve Franconeri (2003). Scene Perception: What We Can Learn From Visual Integration and Change Detection. In Michael L. Peterson & G. Rhodes (eds.), Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes (335-355). Oxford University Press.
  26.  2
    Daniel J. Simons & Kathleen M. Galotti (1992). Everyday Planning: An Analysis of Daily Time Management. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30 (1):61-64.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  27.  1
    Carina Kreitz, Philip Furley, Daniel J. Simons & Daniel Memmert (2016). Does Working Memory Capacity Predict Cross-Modally Induced Failures of Awareness? Consciousness and Cognition 39:18-27.
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  28.  2
    Steve Franconeri, Daniel J. Simons & J. Junge (2004). Searching for Stimulus-Driven Shifts of Attention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11 (5):876-881.
  29. Keith Bredemeier, Howard Berenbaum, Steven B. Most & Daniel J. Simons (2011). Links Between Neuroticism, Emotional Distress, and Disengaging Attention: Evidence From a Single-Target RSVP Task. Cognition and Emotion 25 (8):1510-1519.
  30. Steven B. Most & Daniel J. Simons (2001). Attention Capture, Orienting, and Awareness. In Charles L. Folk & Bradley S. Gibson (eds.), Attraction, Distraction and Action: Multiple Perspectives on Attentional Capture. Advances in Psychology. Elsevier. pp. 151-173.
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  31. 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.
    Export citation  
    My bibliography