» Articles » PMID: 19293113

The Effects of Individual Differences and Task Difficulty on Inattentional Blindness

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2009 Mar 19
PMID 19293113
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Most studies of inattentional blindness-the failure to notice an unexpected object when attention is focused elsewhere-have focused on one critical trial. For that trial, noticing the unexpected object might be a result of random variability, so that any given individual would be equally likely to notice the unexpected object. On the other hand, individual differences in the ability to perform the primary task might make noticing more likely for some individuals than for others. Increasing the difficulty of the primary task has been shown to decrease noticing rates for both brief static displays (Cartwright-Finch & Lavie, 2007) and dynamic monitoring tasks (Simons & Chabris, 1999). However, those studies did not explore whether individual differences in noticing arise from differences in the ability to perform the primary task. For our Experiment 1, we used a staircase procedure to equate primary task performance across individuals in a dynamic inattentional blindness task and found that the demands of the primary task affected noticing rates when individual differences in accuracy were minimized. In Experiment 2, we found that individual differences in primary task performance did not predict noticing of an unexpected object. Together, these findings suggest that although the demands of the primary task do affect inattentional blindness rates, individual differences in the ability to meet those demands do not.

Citing Articles

A survey of what legal populations believe and know about inattentional blindness and visual detection.

Cullen H, Paterson H, Dutton T, van Golde C PLoS One. 2024; 19(1):e0296489.

PMID: 38180989 PMC: 10769081. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296489.


The invisible 800-pound gorilla: expertise can increase inattentional blindness.

Robson S, Tangen J Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2023; 8(1):33.

PMID: 37247030 PMC: 10226969. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-023-00486-x.


Does Expertise Reduce Rates of Inattentional Blindness? A Meta-Analysis.

Ekelund M, Fernsund H, Karlsson S, Mac Giolla E Perception. 2022; 51(2):131-147.

PMID: 35060780 PMC: 8813586. DOI: 10.1177/03010066211072466.


Influence of Alcohol and Cognitive Capacity on Visual Number Judgements.

Harvey A, Seedhouse M Perception. 2021; 50(1):39-51.

PMID: 33446069 PMC: 7812515. DOI: 10.1177/0301006620984105.


The invisible breast cancer: Experience does not protect against inattentional blindness to clinically relevant findings in radiology.

Williams L, Carrigan A, Auffermann W, Mills M, Rich A, Elmore J Psychon Bull Rev. 2020; 28(2):503-511.

PMID: 33140228 PMC: 8068567. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01826-4.


References
1.
Most S, Simons D, Scholl B, Jimenez R, Clifford E, Chabris C . How not to be seen: the contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychol Sci. 2001; 12(1):9-17. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00303. View

2.
Macknik S, King M, Randi J, Robbins A, Teller , Thompson J . Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9(11):871-9. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2473. View

3.
Kuhn G, Amlani A, Rensink R . Towards a science of magic. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008; 12(9):349-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.008. View

4.
Simons D, Chabris C . Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception. 2000; 28(9):1059-74. DOI: 10.1068/p281059. View

5.
Memmert D . The effects of eye movements, age, and expertise on inattentional blindness. Conscious Cogn. 2006; 15(3):620-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.01.001. View