MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412459245 · doi:10.1167/jov.25.9.1949

Change Blindness: The Impact of Motion and Perceptual Load

2025· article· en· W4412459245 on OpenAlexaff
R. K. Pitman, D G Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindnessPerceptionMotion (physics)Change blindnessComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyOptometryComputer visionNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the dynamic nature of real-world environments, previous research on change detection has primarily used static stimuli. However, research exploring the impact of motion on attention (Suchow & Alvarez, 2011) and memory (Blalock et al., 2014; Chung et al., 2023), two necessary components for successful change detection, suggests that motion can impair both processes. Consequently, the objective of the present experiment was to determine whether motion impairs change detection, as well as whether different motion types (i.e., synchronous and asynchronous) have different effects on detection accuracy. Additionally, we sought to determine whether perceptual load moderates the impact of motion. To address these objectives, we conducted a gradual change blindness experiment in which participants were presented with task-relevant (colourful, randomly-oriented isosceles triangles) and task-irrelevant (gray circles) stimuli that were either stationary, moving synchronously, or moving asynchronously. In each trial, one task-relevant stimulus gradually changed while participants attempted to identify the change target. Change detection was examined as a function of Change Type (Color, Orientation), Motion Type (Stationary, Synchronous, Asynchronous), and Load (3, 6, 9, 12 task-relevant stimuli). Interestingly, results showed that Motion Type significantly affected change detection for orientation changes, but not for color changes. Within the Orientation condition, detection accuracy was highest in the Stationary condition, lower in the Synchronous condition, and lowest in the Asynchronous condition. As hypothesized, we observed an interaction between Load and Motion in the Orientation condition, such that the effects of motion were absent when load was low (Load = 3), but emerged at higher loads (Load = 6, 9, 12). It was concluded that motion only impaired orientation change detection because, unlike color, the inherent movement of the orientation changes were masked by the Synchronous and Asynchronous movement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→