December 2022
Volume 22, Issue 14
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2022
Does computation of summary statistic require attention? An inattentional blindness (IB) study.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Maruti Mishra
    Department of Psychology, University of Richmond, VA, USA.
    Center of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, India.
  • David Melcher
    CiMeC, University of Trento, Italy.
    New York University, Abu Dhabi.
  • Narayanan Srinivasan
    Center of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Allahabad, India.
    Department of Cognitive Science, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  Department of Science and Technology’s Indo-Trento Program in Advanced Research (DST-ITPAR)
Journal of Vision December 2022, Vol.22, 4441. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.4441
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Maruti Mishra, David Melcher, Narayanan Srinivasan; Does computation of summary statistic require attention? An inattentional blindness (IB) study.. Journal of Vision 2022;22(14):4441. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.4441.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Mack and Rock (1999) had argued that attention is needed for perception through a phenomenon called inattentional blindness (IB) and that the standard gestalt grouping is not automatic but, requires attentional resources. The current investigation was motivated to assess the role of attention in computation of summary statistics of size estimation. Eighty naïve observers (Mage=26 years) participated in two IB experiments: Exp1(N=40; mean size estimation) and Exp2 (N=40; member size estimation). Each participant ran four trials, tasked to report the longer arm of the fixation cross (100ms)- either vertical or horizontal. On the fourth trial, unbeknownst to the participant, a set of four circles flashed simultaneously around the fixation cross. Then they were first asked (Q1) whether they saw anything else along with the fixation cross on the screen that was not there in previous trials. Then they were given two circles and asked (Q2) which of the two was the mean size of the circle set (Exp1) or which one of the two circles was present in last trial. 33.3% observers failed to see the set of circles in the IB trial in the mean estimation task and 29.0% in the member task. Of these, 72.7% accurately reported the mean size whereas 66.6% accurately reported the member size. Significant difference was observed between the expected and the observed value (χ2 =4.55; p=0.03) in the mean estimation but not for the member task (χ2 =0.73; p=0.39). Further, no significant difference was observed between the two tasks. For trials in which they do report consciously perceiving something (Q1=Yes; divided attention), 72.7% observers were accurate in mean task compared to only 59.9% in member task. Performance in the mean and member tasks was similar across conditions. Overall results indicate that estimation of summary size statistic also does require some attention.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×