慢变盲过程中的记忆表征

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Haley G Frey,Lua Koenig,Ned Block,Biyu J He,Jan W Brascamp
{"title":"慢变盲过程中的记忆表征","authors":"Haley G Frey,Lua Koenig,Ned Block,Biyu J He,Jan W Brascamp","doi":"10.1167/jov.24.9.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classic change blindness is the phenomenon where seemingly obvious changes that coincide with visual disruptions (such as blinks or brief blanks) go unnoticed by an attentive observer. Some early work into the causes of classic change blindness suggested that any pre-change stimulus representation is overwritten by a representation of the altered post-change stimulus, preventing change detection. However, recent work revealed that, even when observers do maintain memory representations of both the pre- and post-change stimulus states, they can still miss the change, suggesting that change blindness can also arise from a failure to compare the stored representations. Here, we studied slow change blindness, a related phenomenon that occurs even in the absence of visual disruptions when the change occurs sufficiently slowly, to determine whether it could be explained by conclusions from classic change blindness. Across three different slow change blindness experiments we found that observers who consistently failed to notice the change had access to at least two memory representations of the changing display. One representation was precise but short lived: a detailed representation of the more recent stimulus states, but fragile. The other representation lasted longer but was fairly general: stable but too coarse to differentiate the various stages of the change. These findings suggest that, although multiple representations are formed, the failure to compare hypotheses might not explain slow change blindness; even if a comparison were made, the representations would be too sparse (longer term stores) or too fragile (short-lived stores) for such comparison to inform about the change.","PeriodicalId":49955,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vision","volume":"389 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Memory representations during slow change blindness.\",\"authors\":\"Haley G Frey,Lua Koenig,Ned Block,Biyu J He,Jan W Brascamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1167/jov.24.9.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Classic change blindness is the phenomenon where seemingly obvious changes that coincide with visual disruptions (such as blinks or brief blanks) go unnoticed by an attentive observer. Some early work into the causes of classic change blindness suggested that any pre-change stimulus representation is overwritten by a representation of the altered post-change stimulus, preventing change detection. However, recent work revealed that, even when observers do maintain memory representations of both the pre- and post-change stimulus states, they can still miss the change, suggesting that change blindness can also arise from a failure to compare the stored representations. Here, we studied slow change blindness, a related phenomenon that occurs even in the absence of visual disruptions when the change occurs sufficiently slowly, to determine whether it could be explained by conclusions from classic change blindness. Across three different slow change blindness experiments we found that observers who consistently failed to notice the change had access to at least two memory representations of the changing display. One representation was precise but short lived: a detailed representation of the more recent stimulus states, but fragile. The other representation lasted longer but was fairly general: stable but too coarse to differentiate the various stages of the change. These findings suggest that, although multiple representations are formed, the failure to compare hypotheses might not explain slow change blindness; even if a comparison were made, the representations would be too sparse (longer term stores) or too fragile (short-lived stores) for such comparison to inform about the change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vision\",\"volume\":\"389 1\",\"pages\":\"8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vision\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.9.8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vision","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.9.8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

典型变化盲是一种现象,即看似明显的变化与视觉中断(如眨眼或短暂空白)同时发生时,细心的观察者却没有注意到这些变化。研究典型变化盲症原因的一些早期研究表明,任何变化前的刺激表征都会被变化后刺激的表征所覆盖,从而阻碍了变化的检测。然而,最近的研究发现,即使观察者确实保持了变化前和变化后刺激状态的记忆表征,他们仍然会错过变化,这表明变化盲也可能是由于未能比较存储的表征而引起的。在这里,我们研究了慢速变化盲(一种相关现象,即使在没有视觉干扰的情况下,当变化发生得足够慢时也会出现),以确定它是否可以用经典变化盲的结论来解释。在三个不同的慢速变化盲实验中,我们发现那些始终未能注意到变化的观察者至少有两种关于变化显示的记忆表征。其中一种表征精确但短暂:是对最近刺激状态的详细表征,但很脆弱。另一种表征持续时间较长,但相当笼统:稳定但过于粗糙,无法区分变化的各个阶段。这些研究结果表明,尽管形成了多种表征,但无法对假设进行比较可能无法解释慢变盲症;即使进行了比较,表征也会过于稀疏(长期储存)或过于脆弱(短期储存),这种比较无法提供有关变化的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Memory representations during slow change blindness.
Classic change blindness is the phenomenon where seemingly obvious changes that coincide with visual disruptions (such as blinks or brief blanks) go unnoticed by an attentive observer. Some early work into the causes of classic change blindness suggested that any pre-change stimulus representation is overwritten by a representation of the altered post-change stimulus, preventing change detection. However, recent work revealed that, even when observers do maintain memory representations of both the pre- and post-change stimulus states, they can still miss the change, suggesting that change blindness can also arise from a failure to compare the stored representations. Here, we studied slow change blindness, a related phenomenon that occurs even in the absence of visual disruptions when the change occurs sufficiently slowly, to determine whether it could be explained by conclusions from classic change blindness. Across three different slow change blindness experiments we found that observers who consistently failed to notice the change had access to at least two memory representations of the changing display. One representation was precise but short lived: a detailed representation of the more recent stimulus states, but fragile. The other representation lasted longer but was fairly general: stable but too coarse to differentiate the various stages of the change. These findings suggest that, although multiple representations are formed, the failure to compare hypotheses might not explain slow change blindness; even if a comparison were made, the representations would be too sparse (longer term stores) or too fragile (short-lived stores) for such comparison to inform about the change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Vision
Journal of Vision 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
218
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Exploring all aspects of biological visual function, including spatial vision, perception, low vision, color vision and more, spanning the fields of neuroscience, psychology and psychophysics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信