Abstract
Theories relating attention to change blindness (CB) imply that representations of objects in the focus of attention are stable and coherent. However, CB occurs for objects in the focus of attention. Here, we explore this apparent contradiction and the possibility that changes can be detected without having a complete and stable representation of the prechange object. The first experiment required observers to recognize a prechange object and a postchange object after viewing arrays of various sizes in which the prechange object was replaced by the postchange object after a brief delay. Results indicated that the representation of the prechange object was strong enough to cue a change but not strong enough to support accurate recognition. The remaining experiments demonstrated that the representation of the prechange object is volatile in that a shift in the display or the presence of a postchange object can disrupt the representation. These findings add to current theories of attention and representations by showing that attention may result in volatile representations that can support change detection without supporting accurate recognition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becker, M.W., Pashler, H., & Anstis, S.M. (2000). How quickly we forget: Change blindness in a highest digit task shows the volatility of visual representations. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Fort Lauderdale.
Blackmore, S. J., Brelstaff, G., Nelson, K., &Troscianko, T. (1995). Is the richness of our visual world an illusion? Transsaccadic memory for complex scenes.Perception,24, 1075–1081.
Brawn, P. T., Snowden, R. J., & Wolfe, J. M. (1999).The minimal conditions for “change blindness”: What is replaces what was. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Fort Lauderdale.
Carroll, J. M., &Bever, T. G. (1976). Segmentation in cinema perception.Science,191, 1053–1055.
Chun, M. M., &Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 109–127.
Dennett, D.C. (1991).Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown.
Enns, J. T., &Rensink, R. A. (1990). Sensitivity to three-dimensional orientation in visual search.Psychological Science,1, 323–326.
Fodor, J. A., &Bever, T. G. (1965). The psychological reality of linguistic structures.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,4, 414–420.
Grimes, J. (1996). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. In K. Akins (Ed.),Perception (Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, Vol. 2, pp. 89–110). New York: Oxford University Press.
He, Z. J., &Nakayama, K. (1992). Surface versus features in visual search.Nature,359, 231–233.
Henderson, J. M. (1997). Transsaccadic memory and integration during real-world object perception.Psychological Science,8, 51–55.
Hollingsworth, A., &Henderson, J. M. (2000). Semantic informativeness mediates the detection of changes in natural scenes.Visual Cognition,7, 213–235.
Irwin, D. E. (1991). Information integration across saccadic eye movements.Cognitive Psychology,18, 420–456.
Irwin, D. E. (1996). Integrating information across saccadic eye movements.Current Directions in Psychological Science,5, 94–100.
Irwin, D. E., Zacks, J. L., &Brown, J. S. (1990). Visual memory and the perception of a stable visual environment.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 35–46.
Kahneman, D. (1968). Method, findings, and theory in studies of visual masking.Psychological Bulletin,70, 404–425.
Levin, D. T., &Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 501–506.
Loftus, G. R., Duncan, J., &Gehrig, P. (1992). On the time course of perceptual information that results from a brief visual presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 530–549.
McConkie, G. W., &Currie, C. B. (1996). Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 563–581.
Mondy, S., &Coltheart, V. (2000). Detection and identification of change in naturalistic scenes.Visual Cognition,7, 281–296.
O’Regan, J. K., Deubel, H., Clark, J. J., &Rensink, R. (2000). Picture changes during blinks: Looking without seeing and seeing without looking.Visual Cognition,7, 191–211.
O’Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., &Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of “mudsplashes.”Nature,398, 34.
Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 369–378.
Peterson, M. A. (1994). Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization.Current Directions in Psychological Science,3, 105–111.
Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 283–290.
Potter, M. C. (1999). Understanding sentences and scenes: The role of conceptual short-term memory. In V. Coltheart (Ed.),Fleeting memories: Cognition of brief visual stimuli (pp. 13–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rayner, K., McConkie, G. W., &Ehrlich, S. (1978). Eye movements and integrating information across fixations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 529–544.
Rensink, R. A. (2000). The dynamic representation of scenes.Visual Cognition,7, 17–24.
Rensink, R. A. (2002). Change detection.Annual Review of Psychology,53, 245–277.
Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., &Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes.Psychological Science,8, 368–373.
Simons, D. J. (1996). In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail.Psychological Science,7, 301–305.
Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness.Visual Cognition,7, 1–15.
Simons, D. J., &Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,1, 262–267.
Simons, D. J., &Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people in a real-world interaction.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 644–649.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations.Psychological Monographs,74(11, Whole No. 498), 1–29.
Zelinsky, G. J., &Murphy, G. L. (2000). Synchronizing visual and language processing: An effect of object name length on eye movements.Psychological Science,11, 125–131.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beck, M.R., Levin, D.T. The role of representational volatility in recognizing pre- and postchange objects. Perception & Psychophysics 65, 458–468 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194575
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194575