Nonexplicit Change Detection in Complex Dynamic Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We employed a computer-controlled command-and-control (C2) simulation and recorded eye movements to examine the extent and nature of the inability to detect critical changes in dynamic displays when change detection is implicit (i.e., requires no explicit report) to the operator's task. BACKGROUND: Change blindness-the failure to notice significant changes to a visual scene-may have dire consequences on performance in C2 and surveillance operations. METHOD: Participants performed a radar-based risk-assessment task involving multiple subtasks. Although participants were not required to explicitly report critical changes to the operational display, change detection was critical in informing decision making. Participants' eye movements were used as an index of visual attention across the display. RESULTS: Nonfixated (i.e., unattended) changes were more likely to be missed than were fixated (i.e., attended) changes, supporting the idea that focused attention is necessary for conscious change detection. The finding of significant pupil dilation for changes undetected but fixated suggests that attended changes can nonetheless be missed because of a failure of attentional processes. CONCLUSION: Change blindness in complex dynamic displays takes the form of failures in establishing task-appropriate patterns of attentional allocation. APPLICATION: These findings have implications in the design of change-detection support tools for dynamic displays and work procedure in C2 and surveillance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".