slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The Effects of Focused Attention and Varied Peripheral and Central Changes on Change Blindness and Change Detection

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

The Effects of Focused Attention and Varied Peripheral and Central Changes on Change Blindness and Change Detection - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 619 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Effects of Focused Attention and Varied Peripheral and Central Changes on Change Blindness and Change Detection. Teal Maxwell Emily Welch Naomi Janett Jessica Padgett. Defining Terms. Change Blindness Change Detection Focused Attention. Previous Research Type of Change.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Effects of Focused Attention and Varied Peripheral and Central Changes on Change Blindness and Change Detection' - Angelica


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

The Effects of Focused Attention and Varied Peripheral and Central Changes on Change Blindness and Change Detection

Teal Maxwell

Emily Welch

Naomi Janett

Jessica Padgett

defining terms
Defining Terms
  • Change Blindness
  • Change Detection
  • Focused Attention
previous research type of change
Previous ResearchType of Change
  • Central changes were very frequently detected, but peripheral changes were rarely detected unless the participants’ attention was directed to the peripheral images (Turatto, Angrilli, Mazza, Umilta, & Driver 2002).
  • Peripheral changes take longer to detect (Shore & Klein, 2000).
previous research area of focus
Previous ResearchArea of Focus
  • Usually details of an image can only be remembered if one’s attention is focused on the feature that is changing (Rensink,O’Regan & Clark 1997).
  • Cueing participants to the area of change substantially increases their ability to detect a change (Turatto, Angrilli, Mazza, Umilta, & Driver 2002).
variables
Variables
  • Independent
          • Type of Change (Central or Peripheral)
          • Area of Focus (Central, Peripheral, or None)
  • Dependent
          • Number of Correctly Identified Changes (out of 5)
hypothesis
Hypothesis
  • Central changes will be more easily detected than peripheral changes
  • With attention guidance more changes will be detected
  • Participants in the condition with central changes and centrally focused attention will correctly detect more changes than the other experimental conditions
method participants
MethodParticipants
  • 200 total participants
          • 31 Central Change and Central Focus
          • 37 Central Change and Peripheral Focus
          • 37 Central Change and No Focus
          • 30 Peripheral Change and Central Focus
          • 30 Peripheral Change and Peripheral Focus
          • 35 Peripheral Change and No Focus
  • Female Mount Holyoke College students
  • Random assignment
materials
Materials
  • 2 photos per condition (6 total conditions)
  • Photos taken by an Olympus digital camera
materials10
Materials
  • Pictures printed on a 8.5” x 11” sheet of paper
  • Changes detected were reported on 3” x 5” notecard
  • Stopwatch used for timing
  • Consent form
  • Debriefing statement
procedure
Procedure
  • Participant signed consent form
  • Participants given notecard
  • Directions read depending on condition
  • Original photo shown for 30 seconds
  • 5 second pause
  • Modified photo shown for 30 seconds
  • Participants recorded changes detected
  • Debriefing statement presented
slide12
Original

Central

slide13
Original

Peripheral

slide14
Original with Focus

Central with Focus

slide15
Original with Focus

Peripheral with Focus

results dependent variable
ResultsDependent Variable
  • The number of correctly detected changes out of a possible 5
hypothesis17
Hypothesis
  • Central changes will be more easily detected than peripheral changes
  • With attention guidance more changes will be detected
  • Participants in the condition with central changes and centrally focused attention will correctly detect more changes than the other experimental conditions
results analysis
ResultsAnalysis
  • Data were analyzed using a two-way independent groups ANOVA
  • Central changes
          • Mean: 3.03
          • Standard Deviation: 1.63
  • Peripheral changes
          • Mean: 1.71
          • Standard Deviation: 1.41
  • Results significant, p <.001
results analysis20
ResultsAnalysis
  • Central focus
      • Mean: 2.56
      • Standard Deviation: 2.22
  • Peripheral focus
      • Mean: 1.89
      • Standard Deviation: 1.23
  • No focus
      • Mean: 2.74
      • Standard Deviation: 1.33
results analysis22
Central Change-Central Focus

Mean: 4.56

Standard Deviation: 0.57

Central Change-Peripheral Focus

Mean: 1.43

Standard Deviation: 1.28

Central Change-No Focus

Mean: 3.35

Standard Deviation: 1.03

Peripheral Change-Central Focus

Mean: 0.5

Standard Deviation: 1.14

Peripheral Change-Peripheral Focus

Mean: 2.47

Standard Deviation: 0.90

Peripheral Change-No Focus

Mean: 2.09

Standard Deviation: 1.31

ResultsAnalysis

Results significant at p <.001 level

discussion main effect one
DiscussionMain Effect One
  • Participants in the central condition correctly detected significantly more changes than participants in the peripheral condition.
  • Central changes are detected more frequently (Turatto, et al. 2002).
discussion main effect two
DiscussionMain Effect Two
  • Participants who received central attention guidance or no attention guidance detected significantly more changes than those receiving peripheral guidance.
  • When attention is focused on the central aspects of an image, changes are detected more frequently than when no guidance is given (Turatto, et al. 2002).
discussion interaction
DiscussionInteraction
  • For central changes
    • those who received central attention guidance performed better than those receiving peripheral or no attention guidance
    • those who received no attention guidance performed better than those receiving peripheral attention guidance
  • For peripheral changes
    • those who received peripheral attention guidance correctly detected more changes than those receiving central or no attention guidance.
    • those who received no attention guidance correctly detected more changes than those receiving central attention guidance
discussion interaction previous research
DiscussionInteraction - Previous Research
  • When attention is directed to the area in which the change is taking place, the change is more likely to be detected (Turatto, et al. 2002).
  • Without attention guidance, new stimuli “overwrite” what is stored in visual memory (Rensink, et al. 1997).
discussion implications
DiscussionImplications
  • Central changes are more often detected than peripheral changes
  • Attention is naturally focused centrally
  • Attention plays a role in change detection
slide29
Questions?
  • THE END
ad