This week’s reading discuss the change blindness theory and its practical implications. Simons and Ambinder (2005) suggests that the research on change blindness reveals the limits of human cognitive ability, which highlights the surprisingly ignorant nature of human attention. Jensen and his colleague agree with that notion (2011), also adding the comparison of change blindness and inattentional blindness into the topic. While it is impeccable to view change blindness as a flaw in our cognitive system, an alternative integrate may be just as viable, which is that change blindness could be attributed to the person’s general unfamiliarity with the objects.
People are better at noticing the change in objects that are more familiar to them. In fact, familiarity with the object is a crucial confounding variable often overlooked by researchers. Consider Simons and Levin’s study (1998) as an example. While the participant failed to notice that he was speaking to a complete different person, it is worth noting that both of …show more content…
Kelley and his colleagues have found that people are better at identifying change of objects when the objects’ presence is familiar in their context (Kelley, et al., 2003). The researchers tweaked the traditional flicker paradigm experiment, comparing the time needed to detect changes in upright images and inverted images. The result shows that people are significantly faster at detecting changes in upright images than the inverted images (Kelly, et al., 2003). Further, another study have found that change detections were better for the predominate objects in the picture, but this advantage was eliminated when the researchers inverted the same set of images (Shore and Klein, 2000). This also relates back to the suggestion that people are more sensitive to the changes on familiar objects, as objects perceived upright are certainly more familiar to most people than when they are shown
People are better at noticing the change in objects that are more familiar to them. In fact, familiarity with the object is a crucial confounding variable often overlooked by researchers. Consider Simons and Levin’s study (1998) as an example. While the participant failed to notice that he was speaking to a complete different person, it is worth noting that both of …show more content…
Kelley and his colleagues have found that people are better at identifying change of objects when the objects’ presence is familiar in their context (Kelley, et al., 2003). The researchers tweaked the traditional flicker paradigm experiment, comparing the time needed to detect changes in upright images and inverted images. The result shows that people are significantly faster at detecting changes in upright images than the inverted images (Kelly, et al., 2003). Further, another study have found that change detections were better for the predominate objects in the picture, but this advantage was eliminated when the researchers inverted the same set of images (Shore and Klein, 2000). This also relates back to the suggestion that people are more sensitive to the changes on familiar objects, as objects perceived upright are certainly more familiar to most people than when they are shown