↓ Skip to main content

Reconciling change blindness with long-term memory for objects

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Reconciling change blindness with long-term memory for objects
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, November 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13414-016-1240-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Wood, Daniel J. Simons

Abstract

How can we reconcile remarkably precise long-term memory for thousands of images with failures to detect changes to similar images? We explored whether people can use detailed, long-term memory to improve change detection performance. Subjects studied a set of images of objects and then performed recognition and change detection tasks with those images. Recognition memory performance exceeded change detection performance, even when a single familiar object in the postchange display consistently indicated the change location. In fact, participants were no better when a familiar object predicted the change location than when the displays consisted of unfamiliar objects. When given an explicit strategy to search for a familiar object as a way to improve performance on the change detection task, they performed no better than in a 6-alternative recognition memory task. Subjects only benefited from the presence of familiar objects in the change detection task when they had more time to view the prechange array before it switched. Once the cost to using the change detection information decreased, subjects made use of it in conjunction with memory to boost performance on the familiar-item change detection task. This suggests that even useful information will go unused if it is sufficiently difficult to extract.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 68%
Computer Science 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2016.
All research outputs
#21,500,614
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,661
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,377
of 421,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.