Levin and Simons (1997) hypothesized that coding is necessary for detecting changes in observable inconsistencies, referenced as “continuity errors”. Viewing 2-D video images, about 10% of the participants “sensed” any continuity errors. Levin and Simons (1997) reasoned that “attention is necessary for change detection” (p. 503) and “attended objects require explicit coding” (p. 502). A second study cued participants to focus attention on the actor in movie clips, noting any discrepancies. The results surprised Levin and Simons (1997) with 70% oblivious to the body double shift at breaks in scene/filming. And so, Levin and Simons (1997) conducted a third experiment providing concise verbal directions. Continuity errors when provided with verbal cues are more easily recognizable. Rensink, O’Regan, and Clark (1997) support that verbal cues and focused attention in eye movement are highly associated. In conclusion, Levin and Simmons (1997) concluded visual observations and assimilation with the environment require guidance and understanding language.
A year later, Simons and Levin (1998, p. 644), utilized empirical data on retinal function, defining the inability to observe changes from one view to another as “change blindness” (Rensink, et al., 1997). Taking the experiment to 3-D in personal encounters Simons and Levin (1998) momentarily blocked pedestrian view while implementing a body double “continuity error”. The results showed approximately 50% noticed any changes (Simons & Levin, 1998, p. 646). Further hypotheses on “memory/language” influencing results proposed ingroup similarities contributed to “focusing” on changes in body double. Simons and Levin (1998) conducted a second experiment on these social confounds, which resulted in only 30% noting changes in visual cognition from body double exchange. Simons and Levin (1998, p. 648) attributed the decrease to outgroup affiliation from college/young adults, “dramatically reducing” the ability to detect “the centrally attended object.” Scientific methodology and inquiry promote further research, as seen at the conclusion of these two studies.
It is significant to note the large effect of discrepancies in observations both in video and real life. With attention alone insufficient for detection, and verbal cues necessary for increased awareness, the foundation of eye-witness testimony challenges empirical data design. Interestingly, because our visual system does not assimilate and compare (Simons & Levin, 1998) the effects of media cues, verbal cues, and technological “note” plausibly would influence the young mind to “focus” on a crucial point. What IF this point is countercultural? What if the central focus could cause emotional/mental harm? What if the focus attention is intentionally misguided?
Levin and Simons (1997) and Simons and Levin (1998) introduce the possibilities of greater disciplined awareness in both media and real-world situations. Likewise, the opportunity to alter or force doubt into one’s experience by verbal cue or guided imagery is concerning. The importance of ethical standards in research, society’s institutions, and medical/psychological practice is essential to upholding the development and well-being of vulnerable populations.
References
Levin, D. and Simons, D. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(4), 501-506.
Rensink, R., O’Regan, K., and Clark, J. (1997, September). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368-373.
Simons, D. and Levin, D. (1998). Failure to detect change to people during real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4), 644-649.
respond to this students post original artical uploaded