Change Blindness and Visual Memory: Research and Theories

transplant Blindness and Visual Memory Research and TheoriesWhat is limiting sightlessness and what laughingstock it tell us ab kayoed circumspection?Recent research on ocular memory has shown that people get down great difficulty in incuring obvious swaps to an object, much(prenominal) as colour and sizing, if the shift occurs concurrently with a distraction. The term mixture cecity is employ to describe this phenomenon and to a greater extent than research has been carried out to further our understanding of the condition. Research on qualify cecity has also produced valuable education around how our visual aid is involved in the encoding process.A variety of tests have been certain to test the prevalence of variegate blindness and the results show that it is a heavy-armed phenomenon. Although neuter blindness was studied m whatever decades ago it is only in the last decade that research in this bea has increase dramatically. to begin with research relied on apply shapes or novel objects to induce veer blindness and consequently almost turn overd that the condition was caused by artificial stimuli. However, Grimes (1996) showed that more lifelike images could be used to induce qualifying blindness. Using a computer screen he showed perceivers photographic images of natural scenes and asked the observers to remember as much of the photograph as possible for a later memory test. However, during a saccade (when observers were visually s bungholening one object to another in the image) the image was altered. The observers were then asked if they noticed if anything had transposed to the image. Invariably, observers were oblivious to the deviates even when they were major(ip) ones, such as two people exchanging heads. Although previous experiments had shown the existence of change blindness, Grimes 1996 hit the books was the first to show that individuals can fail to observe major alterations to images. Moreover, Grimes used ev eryday natural images thereby bringing demonstrations of change blindness close at hand(predicate) to everyday perceptual experience. Other similar studies also showed that different distracters could be used to induce change blindness. For example, during eye blinking (ORegan et al 2000) or by applying mudsplats in the surrounding area of the objects that were changed (ORegan et al 1999).The fact that distractions are extremityed to induce change blindness suggests that attention is needed for change perception. Without distracters it is very easy for an observer to notice any change that has interpreted place. This led researchers to investigate the role of attention in change blindness and now there is mounting evidence that attention plays a icy role in the condition. For example, in change blindness tasks it has been open that attention to objects can vary depending on the objects location and this can influence whether the change is detected. This has been demonstrated by studies such as Rensink et al (1997). They developed the twinkle task which involves using an original and altered image that is repeatedly shown to the observer with the two images separated by a blank screen for a fraction of a second. As with other distracters the observers demonstrated change blindness by invariably taking a long time onward they noticed the change to the original image (average being 40 repeats). some other intimacying finding of this study is that the observers found it easier to detect changes to objects that were the centre of wager of a scene than objects that were of marginal interest even when the changes were of equal physical salience. This has also been found in other change blindness studies. Levin Simons, (1997), for example, found the same effect when they changed movie objects during a film cut. One hypothesis to explain this finding is that cogitate attention is required to detect change. This makes adept as a change of any object is alwa ys accompany by a motion signal and therefore attracts attention to the commit of change. This allows the change to be observed. However, if the signal is too weak (e.g., because of distracters such as saccades or blanking) it testament fail to draw attention to the location of the change which allow result in change blindness (Rensink et al 1997). channel blindness can also be demonstrated in real-life situations. Simons and Levin (1998) carried out an experiment in which members of the public were approached by an experimenter who asked for directions. During their conversation two actors carrying a large occluder would walk between the experimenter and subject. At this point the experimenter would swap places with a colleague who would continue the conversation with the subject. The findings showed that some individuals failed to notice that the experimenter had swapped places with another soulfulness even though the differences between the two were obvious, such as size and different clothes. This study was important because it showed that change blindness could occur using complex stimuli usually found in the real world. Therefore, finding change blindness can occur in more naturalistic settings counteracted some claims that it was only caused by artificial disruptions, such as the blanking-out distracter in the quake paradigm (Simons Rensink 2005).There are several theories that attempt to explain change blindness in relation to the interaction between attention and visual perception. For example, Rensink (2000, 2001) developed his coherence speculation. This theory is based on several assumptions. First, forward to cerebratesed attention there is an initial stage of processing across the visual field of view. This processing produces representations of several objects in the field of view, unless the representations are not stable and therefore are quickly replaced by new stimuli at their location. Second, steeringed attention produces a very lucubrate and longer-lasting representation of the object. This allows the representation of the object to be more stable which can concord brief interruption. Therefore, a change in a revolve abouted object will be easily detectable. Third, removing focussed attention will result in the representation of the object disintegrating and returning to the unstable narrate it was prior to focussed attention.From the above assumptions it follows that only changes made to objects that are the focus of attention will be detected. This can explain why change blindness is a common phenomenon, because any changes to an un accompanied object will not be detected.The assumption that attentional processes are crucial in underlying change blindness is a common one. For example, Hollingworth and Henderson (2002) agree with the assumption. However, they rede an alternative theory of the relationship between attention and object perception. They argue that detailed perceptions are formed wh en we look at objects which are the focus of attention. These representations are then incorporated into a mental map and information about these visual representations is then stored in the semipermanent memory. Therefore, multiple fixations of a scene will result in information accumulating in the long-term memory about local objects from both the attended and previously attended areas, and this forms a detailed representation of the scene as a social unit (Hollingworth and Henderson 2002).There are several differences between Hollingworth and Hendersons theory and the coherence theory that have implications about understanding the role of attention in change blindness. First, if objects change, (e.g., disappear or move) sometime after they were attended to, according to Hollingworth and Henderson they would still be mentally visible for some time after the change. Therefore, any change has a good chance of being noticed. Whereas the coherence theory predicts that when attention is withdrawn from objects the mental representation of such objects disintegrate apace and therefore any change will result in change blindness. Second, unlike the coherence theory, Hollingworth and Henderson assume that detailed representations of most scenes are stored in the long-term memory. Therefore, any changes made to objects should be detected several proceeding later. Finally, in the coherence theory it assumed that focusing attention on an object produces a very detailed image that can withstand a brief interruption, such as a saccade. In contrast, Hollingworth and Henderson deliberate that less detailed visual representations are made when the object is the focus of attention. To date, research has not provided clear evidence to support either Hollingworth and Hendersons theory or the coherence theory (see Simons Rensink 2005 for an overview). Therefore, further investigations are required to correct understand the interaction between attention and change blindness. Change blindness is a robust phenomenon that has been demonstrated in many different science laboratory and naturalistic studies. The overall assumption of the findings of change-blindness experiments is that attention seems to play a major role in determining the extent of the condition. The importance of attention in change blindness appears to arise because we do not maintain a detailed representation of what we have just seen. Otherwise individuals would have pocket-size problem noticing the obvious changes that occur between images. Change blindness studies have proved a useful tool in providing information about the processing mechanisms of attention, such as we direct attention more to objects of interest within a scene. However, although studies on change blindness have increased our understanding of attention there is much debate about the strike role of attention in change blindness. Further research is therefore required to fully understand the relationship between att ention and change blindness and what other factors are involved in the condition.ReferencesGrimes J. (1996). On the calamity to detect changes in scenes across sac-cades. In K. Akins (Ed.), Perception (Vancouver Studies in cognitive Science, Vol. 5. (89-110). Oxford Oxford University Press.Hollingworth A. Henderson J. M. (2002). Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal ofExperimental psychological science Human Perception Performance, 28,113-136Levin D.T. Simons D.J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 4, 501-506Mark T. Keane Eysenck W. (2005) cognitive Psychology A Students Handbook Psychology Press UK pages 133-136ORegan J.K., Rensink R.A., Clark J.J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of mudsplashes Nature 398, 34ORegan J.K, Deubel, H., Clark J.J., Rensink R.A. (2000). Picture changes during blinks Looking without sightedness and seeing without looking. Visual Co gnition, 7, 191-211Proctor R. Johnson W (2004) Attention Theory and Practice. apt Publications inc pages 212-214Rensink R. A (2001) Change Blindness Implications for the Nature of Visual Attention. In good deal Attention. M. Jenkin L. Harris, eds. New York Springer. 2001. 169-188Rensink R.A., ORegan J.K., Clark, J.J. (1997) To see or not to see The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol. S 8, 368373Simons D.J. and Levin D.T. (1997) Change blindness. Trends Cogn Sci. 1, 261267Simons D.J. and Levin D.T. (1998) Failure to detect changes to people in a real-world interaction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5, 644649Simons D.J. Rensink R.A (2005) Change blindness Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.9 No.1 16