Changes

When researching our topic, Change Blindness, we found document upon document on several documents concerning this topic. Out of the great many documents we found, we choose 7 (seven) documents to focus on. After reading each document, we decided upon 5 (five) documents. One (1) was dismissed due to many grammatical errors, and while the other was dismissed due to repetitivenessit being almost identical to another document which was found. With the remaining five (5) documents in hand, we settled upon what our test will would cover, which is "Can “Can users notice one thing while being occupied by another?". Below, the five (5) ” Here are our results and findings from these documents will be discussed.

Our main primary document is called titled Current Approaches to Change Blindness, and was written by Daniel J. Simons of Harvard University. This document is a great overview to the topic of change blindness. This document also provides challenges to studying change blindness. For instance, for someone to notice that a change has occurred, they must be paying attention. But in the document, Mr. Simons states that "although “although attention appears to be necessary for change detection, it many may not be sufficient" sufficient” (Daniel J. Simons, Page 5). This means that regardless of if you are paying attention, you may not notice a sudden change, "All “All observers failed to notice when the central object in a brief motion picture (a soda bottle) was replaced by a box following a brief pan away from the table (Simons, 1996)" table” (Daniel J. Simons, Page 5). With this in mind, we started to form out test parameters.

Our second secondary document is called titled Change-blindness as a result of mudsplashes, collaborated on by J. Kevin O'Regan, Ronald A. Rensink, and James J. Clark. This documents document is actually an article from Nature, Volume 398, published March 4th, 1999, page 34. This article is interesting, as it provides a study to help "validate" “validate” change blindness. It also follows closely with our own personal test, but along with a different path (pictures VS FaceBookvs. Facebook). In the article, they displayed 48 pictures, for 3 seconds, with a 'mud splash' for exactly 80 milliseconds. Where as Whereas with our research we displayed "notifications" (“notifications”, either by Liking liking a post, or posting something on the tester wall. This was done in intervals, ranging from every second up to 10 seconds. After seeing the similarities between this and our initial idea for a test, our test appeared to be finalized.

Our three remaining documents are were Beyond the Grand Illusion, collaborated upon by Alva Noe Noë of the University of California, Luiz Pessoa of the University of Rio De de Janeiro, and Evan Thompson of York University. This document shows a more physical look at change blindness, including how human biology can be a factor. The second document is Neural correlates of change detection and change blindness, collaborated upon by Diane M. Beck, Geraint Rees, Christopher D. Frith and Nilli Lavie. This document talks about how research was done with MRI's to see how the brain reacts when experiencing change blindness. The final document is studied was Change Blindness Blindness: The metacognitive Error of Overestimating Change-detection Ability, collaborated upon by Daniel T. Levin, Nausheen Momen, Sarah B. Drivdahl as well as Daniel J. Simons. This final article helped with our primary research the most, but does not pertain to our subject as much since it did not deal with our thesis. It was more of presenting findings from someone else's research.