Talk:Change blindness

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Klausfaust, A.McAuliffe, Isaac Mervis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous note?
[The following text was incorrectly stuck between header templates on this page, so I moved it under its own header here —Adallace (talk)] Aha, I looked at the history and found why Aginsky et al is cited - it does talk about perceiving changes while being concentrated on something different, and that was for what it was cited in the first place. But as the sentence is now, the citation should be dropped.

Unclear sentence
In the practical implications section: "In many cases, witnesses are rarely able to detect a change in the criminal's identity unless first intending to remember the incident in question"

I don't understand what 'a change in the criminal's identity' would mean. Not noticing that two different people (rather than the same person) did different actions? It's not at all clear. Vultur (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't see unclear to me. For instance, stage a purse snatching where the guy runs around the corner and is then apprehended ... but the person apprehended isn't the same person who snatched the purse. Most people won't notice the change. -- Jibal (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear to me too. A lot of sentences in this article are vague, and it's often hard to understand the relevance to the topic. If I had access to source material I might be able to improve some by editing, but unfortunately I don't know the subject well enough to dare to paraphrase. Here's another sentence which I found particularly confusing. Can anyone explain what "larger changes in an image to the same position to their eye" means, in this sentence from the "Change detection methods: Saccade forcing paradigm" section? "However, it is unclear if small additions to an image will predict if people will be unable to notice larger changes in an image to the same position to their eye." Egmonster (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarity problems
Most of the information in this article is relevant, but hard to tell how, or why it is placed in certain areas. Under “neuroanantomy”, the role of attention presents itself and then attention appears in influencing factors and it is distracting to see what belongs where. Secondly, there are areas in the article that don’t have citations, and then there are areas that draw from one or more references over and over again such as the beginning of the article when it uses the references two and three, and it is difficult to see if these are facts or just one reference’s opinion. A.McAuliffe (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning Up the Article
The organization of the article can be cleaned up, as the information feels cut up and disorganized in its current format. Similar information about the role of attention, for instance, shows up in two separate sections. But in the 1990-2000 research section, there isn't actually any research in the 2000's presented. Also, the format of the article, where almost every subsection seems to be about a different study, has led to consistency issues with referencing sources. Some put an in-text reference to the study, while others do not. The result is a disjointed feel, which could benefit from certain sections being combined. Within those sections, almost every one cites only one unique source. Finding sources that summarize findings rather than working with individual studies can also ease the process of combining the information, Klausfaust (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Repetition and concision
There seems to be quite a bit of repetition in the article. This is reinforced by the structure and could be fixed by reorganizing of the article. The most severe sources of repetition are in the subsections of "History," "Current research (2010-2012)," and "Change detecting paradigms." Each of the change detecting paradigms are discussed earlier in either the "History" and "Current research (2010-2012)" sections. I believe if this article were to offer a brief anecdotal history of change blindness, then expand the list of change detection paradigms to incorporate the patterns discussed in its previous two sections (while going into detail about the research involved), the article could omit most of the "History" section and all of the "Current research (2010-2012)" section and it would be much more concise and less repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Mervis (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Influencing factors
I am going to focus on influencing factors of change blindness as a whole and look more in depth at different studies pertaining to each section of factors. Influencing factors has a great foundation for many of these factors but there still need more details. I will focus specifically on attention and substance use. Each section talks about one specific area of change blindness, but doesn't get into broad areas of it. A.McAuliffe (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)A.McAuliffe

Improvements
I plan to add one study to the section on the influencing factor of age. Then I will focus on adding bits of research about countering change blindness and about change blindness in animals. Those are two areas with research that are not represented yet on this page. Sources to be added:

Bergmann, K. et al. (2015). Age-related differences in the P3 amplitude in change blindness. Psychological Research, 80(4), 660-676.

Riggs, S. & Sarter, N. (2016). The development and evaluation of countermeasures to tactile change blindness." Human Factors, 58(3), 482-495.

Cavanaugh, J. & Wurtz, R. "Subcortical modulation of attention counters change blindness." The Journal of Neuroscience, 24(50), 11236-11243.

Tomonaga, M. & Imura, T. (2015). Change they can't see: Change Blindness in Chimpanzees during a Visual Search Task. i-Perception, 6(2), 104-107.

Herbranson, W et al. (2014). Change detection and change blindness in pigeons. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 105(1), 181-187.

Klausfaust (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Change blindness in other senses
I plan on adding information to the section that includes "Change deafness," "Olfactory," and "Somatosensory." I aim to incorporate a better understanding of each of the types of change blindness, including contributing factors and additional research that has been done which provides further evidence of their existence. The sources I intend to use are:

Change deafness: Vitevitch, M. S. (2003). Change Deafness: The Inability to Detect Changes Between Two Voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 333–342. http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.333 Fenn, K. M., Atkins, A. S., Skipper, J. I., Bond, V. C., & Nusbaum, H. C. (n.d.). When Less Is Heard Than Meets the Ear. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e537052012-583

Olfactory: Keller, A., & Young, B. D. (2014). Olfactory consciousness across disciplines. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol., 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00931

Somatosensory: Auvray, M., Gallace, A., Hartcher-O'brien, J., Tan, H. Z., & Spence, C. (2008). Tactile and visual distractors induce change blindness for tactile stimuli presented on the fingertips. Brain Research, 1213, 111-119. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Mervis (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Addition to article
Added paragraphs in Influencing factors of age, attention, and substance use. Paragraphs are ones with citation of 38, 39, 42, and 48. A.McAuliffe (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)A.McAuliffe

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Change blindness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717000150/http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~behrmann/dlpapers/Simons_Chabris.pdf to http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~behrmann/dlpapers/Simons_Chabris.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509102219/http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu:80/djs_lab/demos.html to http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What's with the "Blindness" section at the bottom?
It's almost like this is the beginning of an article, but it's at the bottom. Should this be here? DesertPipeline (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation
Personally, I would find this article useful, as it provides a detailed look at the topic. I learned about it briefly in class and this article practically features everything that was discussed in class, and more. I think that the article contains a good lead, has relevant and good content, and is not biased towards a certain position. On the other hand, I checked the talked page and there are problems concerning clarity, organization of the article, and its sources. It appears that the article could use some work, but that does not mean that it is bad or unreliable. It also looks like this article was a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, where a few students edited it. I may end up editing this article for my class project, as I want to help improve it. Apologies if this evaluation isn't helpful; I'm new to the Wiki scene and am still learning the ropes at the moment.--JustinC7 (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Ashley444 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Spot the difference
The lead image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness#/media/File:Globe_and_high_court_(Spot_the_difference).jpg is captioned "Although similar, the two images have a number of differences". I noticed the missing branch, tile grouting, the couple, far off building and railing spots but their being a number of differences I knew there must be many more. After furiously looking I finally relented and did a diff between them, I had only missed the railing post.

For any future frustrated readers know that a number=six. Maybe the caption should say so, after all we aren't the subjects of a change blindness study... are we? BeardedChimp (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)