Current Approaches to Change Blindness
Top Cited Papers
- 1 January 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Visual Cognition
- Vol. 7 (1-3) , 1-15
- https://doi.org/10.1080/135062800394658
Abstract
Across saccades, blinks, blank screens, movie cuts, and other interruptions, observers fail to detect substantial changes to the visual details of objects and scenes. This inability to spot changes (“change blindness”) is the focus of this special issue of Visual Cognition. This introductory paper briefly reviews recent studies of change blindness, noting the relation of these findings to earlier research and discussing the inferences we can draw from them. Most explanations of change blindness assume that we fail to detect changes because the changed display masks or overwrites the initial display. Here I draw a distinction between intentional and incidental change detection tasks and consider how alternatives to the “overwriting” explanation may provide better explanations for change blindness.This publication has 52 references indexed in Scilit:
- The abstraction of linguistic ideasPublished by Elsevier ,2004
- Intelligence without representationPublished by Elsevier ,2003
- First impressions are lasting impressions: A primacy effect in memory for repetitionsPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1997
- Is the Richness of Our Visual World an Illusion? Transsaccadic Memory for Complex ScenesPerception, 1995
- Four frames suffice: A provisional model of vision and spaceBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1985
- Failure to integrate visual information from successive fixationsBulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1983
- Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979
- Failure to detect displacement of the visual world during saccadic eye movementsVision Research, 1975
- On the information extracted from a glance at a scene.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974
- The discrimination of dot patterns as a function of number and average separation of dots.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953