Simons and Chabris (1999)

• Previous studies had shown increasing interest in the issue of the precision of visual representations. In these studies observers had to engage in a continuous task that required them to focus on one aspect of a dynamic visual scene whilst ignoring others. At some point during the task an unexpected event occurred. Results showed that the majority of observers did not report seeing the unexpected event even though it was clearly visible to observers not engaged in the concurrent task (e.g. Becklen and Cervone, 1983; Sto regen and Becklen, 1989).

• Although these previous studies have had profound implications for the understanding of perception with and without attention (e.g. change blindness, inattentional blindness), the empirical approach has recently fallen into disuse. One goal of this study was therefore to revive the empirical approach used in the earlier studies.

• This study includes much information into ‘inattentional blindness’ by such authors as Mack and Rock (1998), Rubin and Hua (1998); and ‘selective looking’ by Neisser and Becklen (1975), Becklen, Neisser and Littman (1979), Becklen and Cervone (1983), Sto regen et al (1993); all of which helped to form the basis for this study.

• This study therefore builds on classic studies of divided visual attention to examine inattentional blindness for complex objects and events in dynamic scenes.

• To overcome the fact that previous research did not systematically consider the role of task di culty in detection, and no direct comparisons were made between performance with a superimposed version of the display with a live version, for this study several video segments with the same set of actions, in the same location, on the same day were lmed. A large number of naive observers were asked to watch the video recordings and later answer questions about the unexpected events. 

• This is primarily a laboratory experiment that used an independent measures design.

• The independent variables (IVs) were whether the participant took part in:

  (i) The Transparent/Umbrella Woman condition (ii) The Transparent/Gorilla condition
  (iii) The Opaque/Umbrella Woman condition (iv) The Opaque Gorilla condition. 

• For each of the four displays there were four task conditions:

(i) White/Easy (ii) White/Hard (iii) Black/Easy (iv) Black/Hard.

• Overall there were therefore 16 individual conditions.

• The dependent variable (DV) was the number of participants in each of the 16 conditions who noticed the unexpected event (Umbrella Woman or Gorilla).

• A controlled observation was subsequently conducted in which participants watched a di erent video and had to attend to the White team and engage in the Easy monitoring task. 

• Four video tapes, each 75 seconds in duration were created.

• Each tape showed two teams of three players, one team wearing white shirts, the other black shirts.

• Players moved around in a relatively random fashion in an open area infront of a bank of three elevator doors.

• The members of each team passed a standard orange basketball to one another in a standardised order: player 1→ player 2 → player 3 → player 1. Passes were either bounce or aerial. Players would also dribble the ball, wave their arms and make other movements consistent with their overall pattern of action. 

• After 44-48 seconds of action either of two unexpected events occurred: in the Umbrella-Woman condition, a tall woman holding an open umbrella walked from o camera on one side of the action to the other, left to right. (The actions of the players, and the unexpected event were designed to mimic the stimuli used in previous research by Neisser and colleagues.) In the Gorilla condition, a shorter woman wearing a gorilla costume that fully covered her body walked through the action in the same way. In either case, the unexpected event lasted 5 seconds, and the players continued their actions during and after the event.

• There were two styles of video: in the Transparent condition, the white team, black team and unexpected event were all lmed separately , and the three video streams were rendered partially transparent and then superimposed by using digital video-editing software. In the Opaque condition, all seven actors were lmed simultaneously and could thus occlude one another and the basketballs. (This required some rehearsal before lming to eliminate collisions and other accidents and to achieve natural-looking patterns of movement.) 

• All videos were lmed with an SVHS video camera and were digitised and edited using a nonlinear digital-editing system.

• In a separate Opaque-style video recording, the gorilla walked from right to left into the live basketball-passing event, stopped in the middle of the players as the action continued all around it, turned to face the camera, thumped its chest, and then resumed walking across the screen. 

• For the experiment: 228 participants (referred to as ‘observers’ throughout the original study), almost all undergraduate students. Each participant either volunteered to participate without compensation, received a large candy bar for participating, or was paid a single fee for participating in a larger testing session including another, unrelated experiment.

• NB: data from 36 participants were discarded so results were used from 192 participants. These were equally distributed across the 16 conditions.

• For the controlled observation: 12 different participants watched the video in which the gorilla thumped its chest. 

• Twenty-one experimenters tested the participants. To ensure standardisation of procedures a written protocol was devised and reviewed with the experimenters before data collection was begun.

• All participants were tested individually and gave informed consent in advance.

• Before viewing the video tape, participants were told they would be watching two teams of three players passing basketballs and that they should pay attention to either the team in white (the White condition) or the team in black (the Black condition).

• They were told to keep either a silent mental count of the total number of passes made by the attended team (Easy condition) or separate silent mental counts of the number of bounce passes and aerial passes made by the attended team (Hard condition).

• After viewing the video tape and performing the monitoring task, participants were immediately asked to write down their count(s) on paper. 

• They were then asked the following additional questions:

  (i) While you were doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual in the video? (ii) Did you notice anything other than the six players?
  (iii) Did you see a gorilla/woman carrying an umbrella walk across the screen?

• After any “yes” responses, participants were asked to provide details of what they noticed. If at any point a participant mentioned the unexpected event, the remaining questions were skipped.

• After questioning, participants were asked if they had previously participated in a similar experiment, heard of such an experiment or heard of the general phenomenon. If they said “yes” they were replaced and their data were discarded.

• Participants were debriefed; this included replaying the video tape on request.

• Each testing session lasted 5-10 minutes. 

From the experiment;

NB: data from 36 participants were discarded for the following reasons:

(i) they already knew about the phenomenon and/or experimental paradigm (n = 14)

(ii) they reported losing count of the passes (n = 9)

(iii) passes were incompletely or inaccurately recorded (n = 7)

(iv) answers could not be clearly interpreted (n = 5)

(v) the participant’s total pass count was more than three standard deviations away from the mean of the other participants in the condition (n = 1).

The remaining 192 participants were distributed equally across the 16 conditions of the 2 x 2 x 2 x2 design (twelve per condition). 

• Out of all 192 participants across all conditions, 54% noticed the unexpected event and 46% failed to notice the unexpected event.

• More participants noticed the unexpected event in the Opaque condition (67%) than the Transparent condition (42%).

• Even in the Opaque condition a substantial proportion of participants (33%) failed to report the event, despite its visibility and the repeated questions about it.

• More participants noticed the unexpected event in the Easy (64%) than the Hard (45%) condition.

• The e ect of task di culty was greater in the Transparent condition (Easy 56%, Hard 27% per condition) than in the Opaque condition (Easy 71%, Hard 62%, per condition). 

• The Umbrella Woman was noticed more often than the Gorilla overall (65% versus 44%). This relation held regardless of the video type, monitoring task or attended team.

• The Gorilla was noticed by more participants who attended to the actions of the Black team than those who watched the White team (Black 58%, White 27%, per condition).

• However there was little di erence between those attending to the Black team and those attending to the White team in noticing the Umbrella Woman (Black 62%, White 66%, per condition). 

• Only 50% noticed the event (roughly the same as the percentage that noticed the normal Opaque/Gorilla walking event (42%) under the same task conditions). 

• Individuals have a sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events.

• Individuals fail to notice an ongoing and highly salient but unexpected event if they are engaged in a primary monitoring task.

• Inattentional blindness is a ubiquitous perceptual phenomenon (rather than an artefact of particular display conditions).

• The level of inattentional blindness depends on the di culty of the primary task.

• Individuals are more likely to notice unexpected events if these events are visually similar to the events they are paying attention to.

• Objects can pass through the spatial extent of attentional focus (and the fovea) and still not be ‘seen’ if they are not specifcally being attended to.

• There is no conscious perception without attention.