Detection and Identification of Change in Naturalistic Scenes

Research using change detection paradigms has demonstrated that only limited scene information remains available for conscious report following initial inspection of a scene. Previous researchers have found higher change identification rates for deletions of parts of objects in line drawings of scenes than additions. Other researchers, however, have found an asymmetry in the opposite direction for addition/deletion of whole objects in line drawings of scenes. Experiment 1 investigated subjects' accuracy in detecting and identifying changes made to successive views of high quality photographs of naturalistic scenes that involved the addition and deletion of objects, colour changes to objects, and changes to the spatial location of objects. Identification accuracy for deletions from scenes was highest, with lower identification rates for object additions and colour changes, and the lowest rates for identification of location changes. Data further suggested that change identification rates for the presence/absence of objects were a function of the number of identical items present in the scene. Experiment 2 examined this possibility further, and also investigated whether the higher identification rates for deletions found in Experiment 1 were found for changes involving whole objects or parts of objects. Results showed higher identification rates for deletions, but only where a unique object was deleted from a scene. The presence of an identical object in the scene abolished this deletion identification advantage. Results further showed that the deletion/addition asymmetry occurs both when the objects are parts of a larger object and when they are entire objects in the scene.

[1]  D. Simons,et al.  Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures , 1997 .

[2]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Mud splashes render picture changes invisible , 1996 .

[3]  D. Simons In Sight, Out of Mind: When Object Representations Fail , 1996 .

[4]  G. Brelstaff,et al.  Is the Richness of Our Visual World an Illusion? Transsaccadic Memory for Complex Scenes , 1995, Perception.

[5]  Christopher B. Currie,et al.  Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  G. Nallan,et al.  Adult Humans Perform Better on Addition Than Deletion Problems , 1994 .

[7]  Kevin J. Hawley,et al.  Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  J Stoeckert,et al.  Picture memory: recognizing added and deleted details. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  N. Kanwisher Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[10]  K Pezdek,et al.  Memory for pictures: a life-span study of the role of visual detail. , 1987, Child development.

[11]  E. Hearst,et al.  Detecting and identifying change: additions versus deletions. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  K. Pezdek,et al.  Development differences in the role of detail in picture recognition memory. , 1982, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[13]  I. Biederman,et al.  Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[15]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[16]  John C. Jahnke,et al.  The Ranschburg effect. , 1969 .

[17]  G. Broll,et al.  Microsoft Corporation , 1999 .

[18]  J. Grimes On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. , 1996 .

[19]  D. Ballard,et al.  Memory Representations in Natural Tasks , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  G. Nallan,et al.  Children Discover Addition More Easily and Faster than Deletion , 1992 .