Literature DB >> 26106062

Shuffling your way out of change blindness.

Emilie Josephs1, Trafton Drew2, Jeremy Wolfe3,4.   

Abstract

Change detection is typically discussed in the literature as a 2-state phenomenon. Small differences between otherwise identical images are easy to detect when the images are superimposed in space and alternated in time ("shuffled"). However, change blindness results from any disruption that prevents the critical change from generating the sole salient transient. Here we show that different presentation strategies produce different degrees of change blindness for the same change. Specifically, shuffling the images supports faster change detection than viewing the same 2 images side by side, even when the images contain a number of distracting differences. In Experiment 1, pairs of photographs having a 50 % chance of containing a difference were viewed either in alternation, in a "Shuffle" condition, or simultaneously, in a "Side-by-Side" condition. Change detection was about 6 seconds faster when the images were viewed in the "Shuffle" mode. In Experiment 2, we presented two images that were slightly laterally shifted relative to each other (0-48 pixels). The RT benefit for the Shuffle viewing mode was very strong when the relative shift was small, to insignificant when there was a large difference between the two images. However, at large shifts, Shuffle maintained an accuracy advantage. It seems that changes are easier to detect when comparing images in a Shuffle condition rather than Side-by-Side. This has important implications for real world tasks like radiology where detection of change is critical.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Change blindness; Eye-tracking; Scene perception; Visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26106062      PMCID: PMC4690818          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0886-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  Change-blindness as a result of 'mudsplashes'.

Authors:  J K O'Regan; R A Rensink; J J Clark
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-03-04       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Failure to detect displacement of the visual world during saccadic eye movements.

Authors:  B Bridgeman; D Hendry; L Stark
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Volatile visual representations: failing to detect changes in recently processed information.

Authors:  Mark W Becker; Harold Pashler
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

4.  Why don't we see changes?: The role of attentional bottlenecks and limited visual memory.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Andrea Reinecke; Peter Brawn
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2006

5.  Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Change blindness.

Authors:  D J Simons; D T Levin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  The role of iconic memory in change-detection tasks.

Authors:  M W Becker; H Pashler; S M Anstis
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 9.  Optimizing analysis, visualization, and navigation of large image data sets: one 5000-section CT scan can ruin your whole day.

Authors:  Katherine P Andriole; Jeremy M Wolfe; Ramin Khorasani; S Ted Treves; David J Getty; Francine L Jacobson; Michael L Steigner; John J Pan; Arkadiusz Sitek; Steven E Seltzer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 11.105

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Image toggling saves time in mammography.

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Avi M Aizenman; Matthew B Thompson; Mark D Kovacs; Michael Trambert; Murray A Reicher; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-10-12

2.  Binocular fusion enhances the efficiency of spot-the-difference gameplay.

Authors:  Kavitha Venkataramanan; Swanandi Gawde; Amithavikram R Hathibelagal; Shrikant R Bharadwaj
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.