23 found
Order:
  1. Change Blindness.Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin - 1997 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (1):241-82.
  2.  7
    Change Blindness.Daniel J. Simons & Daniel T. Levin - 1997 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1 (7):261-267.
  3.  19
    Distortions in the Perceived Lightness of Faces: The Role of Race Categories.Daniel T. Levin & Mahzarin R. Banaji - 2006 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135 (4):501-512.
  4. 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.
  5.  15
    Race as a Visual Feature: Using Visual Search and Perceptual Discrimination Tasks to Understand Face Categories and the Cross-Race Recognition Deficit.Daniel T. Levin - 2000 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129 (4):559-574.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Change Blindness Blindness: Beliefs About the Roles of Intention and Scene Complexity in Change Detection.Melissa R. Beck, Daniel T. Levin & Bonnie Angelone - 2007 - 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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  9.  10
    Cognition Can Affect Perception: Restating the Evidence of a Top-Down Effect.Daniel T. Levin, Lewis J. Baker & Mahzarin R. Banaji - 2016 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  10.  46
    Change Blindness Blindness as Visual Metacognition.Daniel T. Levin - 2002 - 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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  11.  41
    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.Daniel T. Levin, Sarah B. Drivdahl, Nausheen Momen & Melissa R. Beck - 2002 - 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  12. 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.
  13.  17
    Audience‐Contingent Variation in Action Demonstrations for Humans and Computers.Jonathan S. Herberg, Megan M. Saylor, Palis Ratanaswasd, Daniel T. Levin & D. Mitchell Wilkes - 2008 - Cognitive Science 32 (6):1003-1020.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14. Unseen and Unaware: Implications of Recent Research on Failures of Visual Awareness for Human-Computer Interface Design.D. Alexander Varakin, Daniel T. Levin & Roger Fidler - 2004 - Human-Computer Interaction 19 (4):389-422.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  15. No Pause for a Brief Disruption: Failures of Visual Awareness During Ongoing Events.Daniel T. Levin & D. Alexander Varakin - 2004 - 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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16.  38
    Metacognitive Errors in Change Detection: Lab and Life Converge.Melissa R. Beck, Daniel T. Levin & Bonnie L. Angelone - 2007 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  17.  4
    Mechanism and Explanation in the Development of Biological Thought: The Case of Disease.Frank C. Keil, Daniel T. Levin, Bethany A. Richman & Grant Gutheil - 1999 - In D. Medin & S. Atran (eds.), Folkbiology. MIT Press.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  18.  32
    Implicit Learning for Probable Changes in a Visual Change Detection Task.Melissa R. Beck, Bonnie L. Angelone, Daniel T. Levin, Matthew S. Peterson & D. Alexander Varakin - 2008 - Consciousness and Cognition 17 (4):1192-1208.
    Previous research demonstrates that implicitly learned probability information can guide visual attention. We examined whether the probability of an object changing can be implicitly learned and then used to improve change detection performance. In a series of six experiments, participants completed 120–130 training change detection trials. In four of the experiments the object that changed color was the same shape on every trial. Participants were not explicitly aware of this change probability manipulation and change detection performance was not improved for (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19.  18
    The Role of Relational Triggers in Event Perception.Lewis J. Baker & Daniel T. Levin - 2015 - Cognition 136:14-29.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Larry Cahill, Lukasz Gorski, Annabelle Belcher, and Quyen Huynh. The Influence of Sex Versus Sex-Related Traits on Long-Term.Matthew Brown, Derek Besner, Daniel T. Levin & Donald A. Varakin - 2004 - Consciousness and Cognition 13:212.
  21.  19
    Concepts About Agency Constrain Beliefs About Visual Experience.Daniel T. Levin - 2012 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  13
    Optimistic Metacognitive Judgments Predict Poor Performance in Relatively Complex Visual Tasks.Daniel T. Levin, Gautam Biswas, Joeseph S. Lappin, Marian Rushdy & Adriane E. Seiffert - 2019 - Consciousness and Cognition 74:102781.
  23. 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  
     
    Bookmark