Blinded by magic: Electrophysiological correlates of change blindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magicians can often hide their method for a trick in plain sight by effecting a phenomenon known as change blindness. The purpose of this study was to find the reason for why an individual is induced with change blindness. Alpha oscillations are known to impair detection of visual stimuli, but it is unclear if this is due to increased guess rate or decreased fidelity of the mental representation. Here we estimated fidelity and guess rate as a function of pre-stimulus alpha oscillations using a change blindness task. In this study, each trial began with an array of 6 Gabor patches with a fixated dot that subjects were instructed to keep their eyes on. As the array traveled to the center of the screen, it either changed direction vertically at 90 degrees or continued horizontally. When the array switched direction, one of the Gabor patches rotated 30 degrees simultaneously. Subjects were then asked to identify which patch rotated. EEG (electroencephalography) data was simultaneously recorded with eye-tracking as subjects performed the task. Twenty-eight participants performed this task, which included six blocks of forty-eight trials. There were two different types of trials: flexion, in which the array changed direction, and control, in which the array did not change direction. Reaction time tended to be slower in flexion trials, and we found that the change in direction affected the subject’s ability to see the Gabor patch rotation. Based on the event-related potential results, which are an average of EEG signals aligned to the start of a trial, we could see that the P300 differed between correct flexion, incorrect flexion, and control trials. The P300 can be interpreted as a marker of consciousness. This difference demonstrates that the subject’s attention is automatically drawn to a larger change in stimuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".