The Sporum - The Official Spore Forum
  [Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent Topics   [Hottest Topics] Hottest Topics   [Members]  Member Listing   [Groups] Back to forum index 
[Login] Login 
Selective Attention/Psychology Test: The Best Excuse Ever To Not Pay Attention To Something  XML
Forum Index » Science and Spore
Author Message
shadeofmoose318


GalacticGod

Joined: 04/13/2009 20:23:44
Messages: 19446
Location:
Inside a cone of emotion

Offline




And now:




The idea with this new video was to see if those who knew about the invisible gorilla beforehand would be more or less likely to notice other unexpected events in the same video.

"You can make two competing predictions," Simons said. "Knowing about the invisible gorilla might increase your chances of noticing other unexpected events because you know that the task tests whether people spot unexpected events. You might look for other events because you know that the experimenter is up to something."

Alternatively, "knowing about the gorilla might lead viewers to look for gorillas exclusively, and when they find one, they might fail to notice anything else out of the ordinary."

Expecting the unexpected

Of the 41 volunteers

Simon tested who had never seen or heard about the old video, a little less than half missed the gorilla in the new video, much like what happened in the old experiments. The 23 volunteers he tested who knew about the original gorilla video all spotted the fake ape in the new experiment.

However, knowing about the gorilla beforehand did not improve their chances of detecting other unexpected events. Only 17 percent of those who were familiar with the old video noticed one or both of the other unexpected events in the new video. In comparison, 29 percent of those who knew nothing of the old video spotted one of the other unexpected events in the new video.

"This demonstration is much like a good magic trick in which a magician repeatedly makes a ball disappear," Simons said. "A magician can lead the audience to think he's going to make the ball disappear with one method, and while people watch for that technique, he uses a different one. In both cases, the effect capitalizes on what people expect to see, and both demonstrate that we often miss what we don't expect to see."

"A lot of people seem to take the message of our original gorilla study to be that people don't pay enough attention to what is happening around them, and that by paying more attention and 'expecting the unexpected,' we will be able to notice anything important," he added. "The new experiment shows that even when people know that they are doing a task in which an unexpected thing might happen, that doesn't suddenly help them notice other unexpected things."

Once people find the first thing they're looking for, "they often don't notice other things," Simons said. "Our intuitions about what we will and won't notice are often mistaken."

Simons detailed his new findings online July 12 in the journal i-Perception.


Article taken from Yahoo! News.

When they taught together at Harvard in the late 1990s, psychologist Daniel Simons and his student Christopher Chabris got an idea for a new experiment testing how the brain processes visual information. Their 60-second test was outrageously simple: it required only that you watch people passing basketballs. (I'm going to reveal the secret of the test below, so you might want to take the original test before continuing.)

Simons and Chabris had little clue that their experiment would become one of the most famous brain quizzes of the past half-century. Media outlets around the world publicized the test, and NBC aired a Dateline feature about it. The study was even mentioned on a 2001 episode of CSI. Since then, Simons has updated the experiment, and on July 12 he released the results in a new journal called i-Perception. (You can take the new test here. I'm also going to give away the secrets of this one.)
(See why gay men, like women, are better at recognizing faces.)

In the original Simons-Chabris test, subjects were asked to watch a video of six students passing basketballs. Three were dressed in black and three in white. Viewers were supposed to count the number of times the players in white passed the ball. During the video, a woman in a full-body gorilla suit walked into the center of the frame, pounded her chest and then walked off. Shockingly, about half the people who took the test — in countless airings of the video all over the world — did not notice the woman in the gorilla suit. Some who didn't see the woman in the suit protested that the video had been rigged. People who did see her were incredulous: how could so many miss something so obvious? Simons and Chabris had stumbled onto a basic lapse in human visual perception: "inattentional blindness," the failure to see something conspicuous when focusing attention on something else.

In the new i-Perception paper, Simons (this time without Chabris) updates the famous gorilla experiment. The new video also features students divided into two teams, passing basketballs. We are instructed again to count the number of passes by players in white. The gorilla is back. But there are two new visual tricks: a curtain behind the players changes color during the video, and one of the players in black walks out of the frame.
(See why brain games don't improve cognition.)

Simons, now a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, got 76 test subjects to watch the new video in the student-union building on campus. Of the small sample, 12 students were excluded for various reasons, so Simons ended up with just 64. Of those, 23 said they were familiar with the gorilla experiment; predictably, all 23 said they saw the gorilla in the new video. But only one of those 23 noticed both the curtain changing color and the player walking out. Among the 41 who were unfamiliar with the original experiment, no one noticed the color change or the player's departure. About half (18 of the 41) saw the gorilla, reconfirming the results of the original test.

The professor concludes from these results that even when you expect something unexpected to happen, you may not notice it — especially if you are looking for someone in a gorilla suit. Which is probably true, but the unexpected events you're supposed to notice — the curtain and the player walking out — are not simply unexpected but also completely random. Compared with something like a gorilla, the new tricks seem like small matters of set design. It would be strange if you did notice them, especially if you're supposed to be counting ball passes.
(Comment on this story.)

Earlier this year, Crown published a book by Simons and Chabris called The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. The book is firmly in the Malcolm Gladwell school: it uses anecdotes and social-psychology data to spin the plain world you know into a wonderment of surprising new insights. The authors are so confident of their interpretation of their anecdotes and their data, they say in the introduction that the book can help you "see through the veils that distort how we perceive ourselves and ... connect you — for perhaps the first time — with reality."

I feel fairly connected with reality already, so I wasn't shocked to find that the book overpromised. For instance, in a discussion of the many instances in which religious believers see the Virgin Mary in everyday objects (a grilled-cheese sandwich, a salt stain on a Chicago underpass), the authors say the misperceptions are evidence that "your brain can be activated by images that only vaguely resemble what they're tuned for." But isn't it possible that these Virgin Mary sightings are merely evidence of intense religious yearning? If so, why would we assume the phenomenon applies broadly to all of us?

Similarly, Simons and Chabris use a George W. Bush misstatement about his immediate reaction to 9/11 as an example of how memory can be a mere "illusion." Bush said in December 2001 that he had watched on TV as the first plane hit the World Trade Center, which would have been impossible since no video of the first plane crash surfaced for months. Maybe Bush was mistaken, and maybe that means memory can be illusory, but isn't it just as likely that the President was spinning the story on the fly for political effect?

For the record, I did not notice either visual trick in the new video, so maybe I'm just bitter. I didn't watch the original video before I knew about the gorilla, but I expect I would have been in the half who didn't see it. I'm not sure if that makes me less perceptive — or more discerning, more focused. Sometimes, it's better not to see the gorilla.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2003097,00.html#ixzz0tcONALWp



Second Article from Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2003097,00.html

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 07/14/2010 02:10:02



Do not drink alcohol to excess
YOU! Yes, You there! Reading this? Can you make a signature?I'm taking that as a "Yes". PM me (or SilentEpiphany) if you feel like making a sig.
Kafka's "death sentence"
I may go as this account or SilentEpiphany
Imperiex-prime


GalacticGod

Joined: 09/04/2009 03:35:32
Messages: 19433
Location:
I AM PRIME OVERLORD OF THE UNIVERSE

Offline

I remember seeing this experiment once, very weird lol.

shadeofmoose318


GalacticGod

Joined: 04/13/2009 20:23:44
Messages: 19446
Location:
Inside a cone of emotion

Offline

I noticed the gorilla but not the curtains and the person walking out.

For some reason while the gorilla was walking up I got really freaked out. I think I saw one of those videos where something really disturbing jumps out at you where there was a gorilla in it, or something scary with that gorilla in it.

Pavlov should've tested on gorillas.


Do not drink alcohol to excess
YOU! Yes, You there! Reading this? Can you make a signature?I'm taking that as a "Yes". PM me (or SilentEpiphany) if you feel like making a sig.
Kafka's "death sentence"
I may go as this account or SilentEpiphany
Dragonvoid


Spacefaring Sporeling

Joined: 02/03/2009 20:22:00
Messages: 9739
Location:
Wisconsin

Offline

shadeofmoose318 wrote:
Pavlov should've tested on gorillas.


Why?

And I noticed the person leaving in the second video, but not the changing colors.

Dragonvoid is a SHE....................................Sigs: Vilage 7, Darwin 5, Drago 5, Me 5, Aaron 2 Arnie 2, Taupo 1, Viz 1

....You can't enter heaven unless Jesus enters you...
[WWW]
shadeofmoose318


GalacticGod

Joined: 04/13/2009 20:23:44
Messages: 19446
Location:
Inside a cone of emotion

Offline

If you get to do stuff like this all day, it'd be fun to be a psychologist.

"So, what's today's experiment?"

"We're going to dress up like gorillas and run around while people play basketball!"


Sure beats staring at an amoeba in a microscope.


Do not drink alcohol to excess
YOU! Yes, You there! Reading this? Can you make a signature?I'm taking that as a "Yes". PM me (or SilentEpiphany) if you feel like making a sig.
Kafka's "death sentence"
I may go as this account or SilentEpiphany
DoctorWalrus


GalacticGod

Joined: 09/12/2008 10:58:44
Messages: 11663
Location:
All up in this bitch.

Offline

I noticed the gorilla and the curtain change, but not the person leaving.

shadeofmoose318


GalacticGod

Joined: 04/13/2009 20:23:44
Messages: 19446
Location:
Inside a cone of emotion

Offline

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if they've gotten the online/offline thing working? I know a few days ago it said people were offline, but they were still posting, and I didn't know if they'd fixed it or not.


Do not drink alcohol to excess
YOU! Yes, You there! Reading this? Can you make a signature?I'm taking that as a "Yes". PM me (or SilentEpiphany) if you feel like making a sig.
Kafka's "death sentence"
I may go as this account or SilentEpiphany
DoctorWalrus


GalacticGod

Joined: 09/12/2008 10:58:44
Messages: 11663
Location:
All up in this bitch.

Offline

shadeofmoose318 wrote:Out of curiosity, does anyone know if they've gotten the online/offline thing working? I know a few days ago it said people were offline, but they were still posting, and I didn't know if they'd fixed it or not.


Doesn't seem like it.

TyrannoFan


Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 04/19/2010 18:11:14
Messages: 4255
Location:
Spore: Arkham Creation - Alpha Testing; bug fixing

Offline

I noticed the gorilla just as it was walking off lol


A lot of my post count is from Melvin. Also I've been banned twice for no reason.
[Email] [Yahoo!] [MSN]
RandomScots


Multicellular

Joined: 03/20/2010 23:10:10
Messages: 500
Location:
Hiroshima

Offline

DoctorWalrus wrote:I noticed the gorilla and the curtain change, but not the person leaving.

[Email] [MSN]
Jeda45


Microbe

Joined: 06/12/2009 02:14:46
Messages: 92
Offline

RandomScots wrote:
DoctorWalrus wrote:I noticed the gorilla and the curtain change, but not the person leaving.

As did I.
LeopardoDeVinci


Civilized Sporeon

Joined: 03/07/2009 22:10:08
Messages: 1234
Location:
Uh...where's my map?

Offline

Jeda45 wrote:
RandomScots wrote:
DoctorWalrus wrote:I noticed the gorilla and the curtain change, but not the person leaving.

As did I.


The same here.
 
Forum Index » Science and Spore
Go to:   
 
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © ( EA Dev Build 2013-06-21 16:12:06 ) JForum Team