Talk:Inattentional 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): Hadoyle, MaxxEvans.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Expansion
From the needs work website:

Inattentional blindness needs a lot of fleshing out. It was just a paragraph consisting of a brief description. I added a discription of the most well known study and some relavent links, but its still has some big holes. Dalf | Talk 07:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrewjuren 06:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Could also use citations for the research that was mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.223.221 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The "door" study that I did with Daniel Levin is not an example of inattentional blindness -- it's change blindness. That's a different phenomenon. I didn't want to edit it personally given that I work in both fields. For details on the distinction, see the scholarpedia article I wrote on inattentional blindness that's cited in this entry. -Dan S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.5.34 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the "door" study, Dan.

Ag2150 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the last citation (46), the link leads to a missing page with no content. Since this should probably be removed, I was wondering how necessary it is to have the "Police shootings" section at all? There is minimal content and it overall does not seem to be completely relevant. Unless there has been a key incident that could be included, I think this section can be taken out. MaxxEvans (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed in the opening of this article that there is not a citation for the definition and the subsequent piece of information after that. I found a good, reputable article that breaks down inattentional blindness that would work as a citation here. It is as follows: MaxxEvans (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The beginning paragraph of the article is too short and could use more detail. There could be a more in-depth description about inattentional blindness right at the beginning, because it's a little unclear what exactly the concept is. Also, the experiments section is well-endowed with examples of studies that help show what inattentional blindness is, but could include more examples of other biological/psychological concepts that relate to it. For example, there was a study that tested the effect of threatening or neutral stimuli on people who were distracted by a cognitive task they had to perform. Participants were more likely to notice threatening stimuli than neutral ones, showing how evolution in human relates to inattentional blindness. Hadoyle (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)hadoyle Bibliography:

Edit Ideas for "Inattentional Blindness" Article
For editing the "Inattentional Blindness" article, my thoughts were to expand the introduction, or "lead" section, by describing the concept more in detail and providing some examples right there at the beginning. I also plan to put in citations for research that has been done on the topic, since it is always good to have a plethora of studies that relate to a scientific concept in these kinds of articles. I also think that adding these citations is a really important edit for the article because there's a section about research studies (a vital part of the lead section) in the intro that has a "citation needed" edit. What do y'all think? Hadoyle (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)hadoyle

Looking back through the talk page, it seems as though this article has not been updated in a while, and there is now more research to bolster some of the current information. Specifically, I was drawn to the "Possible Causes" subheading and the information here. Not only are there no concrete research examples to support the content, but there are almost no citations for such an extensive amount of text. I found a couple of articles that are very recent, most within the past year, and the research that was conducted could be helpful in expanding the "Possible Causes" section and provide more context. Just within the three articles listed below, researchers study the effects when variables such as working memory and expectations are manipulated. My goal would be to refine the subcategories within this particular section to ensure the content is up-to-date and also supported with proper citations. Including legitimate research examples will not only provide more context, but give readers a better sense that the content they are reading is valid. I recognize that there were example experiments listed in another section of the article, but finding research more specific to exploring causes will be beneficial, and there is the possibility of integrating the current experiments with my updates. Let me know what everyone thinks. Bibliography: MaxxEvans (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For the interested
In case someone is watching, there may be something useful for this article posted at Talk:The Invisible Gorilla. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit proposal for "Inattentional Blindness" Article
The Cosmic Gorilla effect refers to a cognitive (perceptual/ attentional event) described by professor Gabriel G. De la Torre from University of Cadiz, Spain, inspired by the original experiment carried out by the researchers Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons in the 90s (Simons & Chabris, 1999) on inattentional blindness.

The cosmic gorilla effect represents this inattentional blindness in relation to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). We are so focused trying to find certain type of signals of Extraterrestrial (ET) origin that we might miss the "gorilla" in the room, meaning other type of signs of ET presence. According to the neuropsychologist Dr. De la Torre from University of Cadiz in Spain, who coined the term "the cosmic gorilla effect" (De la Torre & Garcia, 2018), this can be due to 3 possible factors: 1) Due to limitations of our physiology and consciousness development, 2) because of a wrong technological approach (e.g. using mainly radio signal detection in detriment of other types of signals and 3) intentional avoidance by ET. The original cosmic gorilla effect experiment consisted of a task where people had to distinguish aerial photographs with artificial structures (buildings, roads, etc.) from others with natural elements (mountains, rivers, etc.). In one of the images, a tiny character disguised as a gorilla was inserted to see if the participants noticed it. Again more than a half of the participants did not notice the gorilla. This experiment has potential serious implications for SETI and indirectly for other astronomical scientific tasks since our own neurophysiology, mind and consciousness may be mediating and conditioning the task itself and the results due to its nature and limitations. Another explanation according to the cosmic gorilla effect is that ET may be some form of dark matter, unknown form of life or using other dimensions to enter and leave this reality at will(De la Torre & Garcia, 2018). The article about the cosmic gorilla effect, published in Acta Astronautica in 2018 produced a big impact and controversy in the SETI community and worldwide media (see references).

references: D.J. Simons, C.F. Chabris, Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events, Perception 28 (1999) 1059–1074. De la Torre, G.G., & Garcia, M. A. (2018). The cosmic gorilla effect or the problem of undetected non terrestrial intelligent signals. Acta Astronautica, 146, 83-91. Wright, J. T. (2019). Searches for Technosignatures: The State of the Profession. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07832. De la Torre, G.G. (2020). Does artificial intelligence dream of non-terrestrial techno-signatures?. Acta Astronautica, 167, 280-285. What can a fake gorilla teach us about the search for space aliens? A new paper argues that the 'cosmic gorilla effect' may be hampering our ability to find E.T. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/what-can-gorilla-teach-us-about-search-space-aliens-ncna867481 A cosmic gorilla effect could blind the detection of aliens. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180410132835.htm A cosmic gorilla effect could blind the detection of aliens. https://phys.org/news/2018-04-cosmic-gorilla-effect-aliens.html Aliens may exist in ways we can’t even imagine. https://nypost.com/2018/04/11/aliens-may-exist-in-ways-we-cant-even-imagine/ Cosmic gorilla effect' could distract humans from detecting aliens. https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/04/11/Cosmic-gorilla-effect-could-distract-humans-from-detecting-aliens/4261523458033/ Cosmic Gorilla Effect: Are Aliens Right Here Among Us? https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/cosmic-gorilla-effect-are-aliens-right-here-among-us-1.5992211 Dark matter may be a manifestation of extremely advanced alien life, researchers suggest. https://www.zmescience.com/space/dark-matter-alien-life-11042018/ Study suggests we haven't met aliens simply because we are blind to them. https://www.sott.net/article/382894-Study-suggests-we-havent-met-aliens-simply-because-we-are-blind-to-them — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDelaTorre (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked as an edit request as a courtesy. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello DrDelaTorre, and thank you for your suggestion. This is, indeed, an interesting set of experiments. However, I am declining your edit request because I am not convinced that the "cosmic gorilla" effect, while related to inattentional bias, falls within the scope of this Wikipedia article. The third criterion for inattentional blindness, as defined by this article, is "observers must be able to readily identify the object if they are consciously perceiving it." The problem though, as I understand it, is that the ET signals we are potentially failing to perceive might be signals that we would never recognize as signs of extraterrestrial contact even if we consciously perceived it. For instance, we are so attuned to detecting the chemical signatures that arise from carbon-based life that we could be ignoring chemical signatures from other forms of life, if they exist. Thus, the cosmic gorilla effect does not, I believe, meet the third criterion. Of course, I'm no expert, so if you disagree with my assessment, feel free to seek a second opinion. Best, Altamel (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)