The role of representational volatility in recognizing pre- and postchange objects

Theories relating attention to change blindness (CB) imply that representations of objects in the focus of attention are stable and coherent. However, CB occurs for objects in the focus of attention. Here, we explore this apparent contradiction and the possibility that changes can be detected without having a complete and stable representation of the prechange object. The first experiment required observers to recognize a prechange object and a postchange object after viewing arrays of various sizes in which the prechange object was replaced by the postchange object after a brief delay. Results indicated that the representation of the prechange object was strong enough to cue a change but not strong enough to support accurate recognition. The remaining experiments demonstrated that the representation of the prechange object is volatile in that a shift in the display or the presence of a postchange object can disrupt the representation. These findings add to current theories of attention and representations by showing that attention may result in volatile representations that can support change detection without supporting accurate recognition.

[1]  T G Bever,et al.  Segmentation in cinema perception. , 1976, Science.

[2]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Surfaces versus features in visual search , 1992, Nature.

[3]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Transsaccadic Memory and Integration During Real-World Object Perception , 1997 .

[4]  G. McConkie,et al.  Eye movements and integrating information across fixations. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  M. Potter,et al.  A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[7]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Sensitivity To Three-Dimensional Orientation in Visual Search , 1990 .

[8]  P. Romano.  Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. , 2000, Binocular vision & strabismus quarterly.

[9]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Picture Changes During Blinks: Looking Without Seeing and Seeing Without Looking , 2000 .

[10]  H Pashler,et al.  Familiarity and visual change detection , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  David E. Irwin.  Information integration across saccadic eye movements , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  D. E. Irwin.  Integrating Information Across Saccadic Eye Movements , 1996 .

[13]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Visual memory and the perception of a stable visual environment , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  V. Coltheart.  Fleeting memories : cognition of brief visual stimuli , 1999 .

[15]  M. Peterson.  Object Recognition Processes Can and Do Operate Before Figure–Ground Organization , 1994 .

[16]  D. Simons,et al.  CHAPTER 13 – Change Blindness , 2005 .

[17]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[18]  D. Simons,et al.  Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction , 1998 .

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

[20]  J. Henderson,et al.  Semantic Informativeness Mediates the Detection of Changes in Natural Scenes , 2000 .

[21]  J. Duncan,et al.  On the time course of perceptual information that results from a brief visual presentation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[23]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Synchronizing Visual and Language Processing: An Effect of Object Name Length on Eye Movements , 2000, Psychological science.

[24]  J. Fodor,et al.  The psychological reality of linguistic segments , 1965 .

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

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

[27]  D. Kahneman.  Method, findings, and theory in studies of visual masking. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Veronika Coltheart,et al.  Detection and Identification of Change in Naturalistic Scenes , 2000 .

[29]  Ronald A. Rensink.  Change detection. , 2002, Annual review of psychology.

[30]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Change-blindness as a result of ‘mudsplashes’ , 1999, Nature.

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

[32]  Daniel J. Simons,et al.  Current Approaches to Change Blindness , 2000 .

[33]  W. A. Phillips.  On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory , 1974 .

[34]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .