Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Metacognitive judgements of change detection predict change blindness

View through CrossRef
People tend to think they are not susceptible to change blindness and overestimate their ability to detect salient changes in scenes. Yet, despite their overconfidence, are individuals aware of and able to assess the relative difficulty of such changes? Here, we investigated whether participants’ judgements of their ability to detect changes predicted their own change blindness. In Experiment 1, participants completed a standard change blindness task in which they viewed alternating versions of scenes until they detected what changed between the versions. Then, 6 to 7 months later, the same participants viewed the two versions and rated how likely they would be to spot the change. We found that changes rated as more likely to be spotted were detected faster than changes rated as more unlikely to be spotted. These metacognitive judgements continued to predict change blindness when accounting for low-level image properties (i.e., change size and eccentricity). In Experiment 2, we used likelihood ratings from a new group of participants to predict change blindness durations from Experiment 1. We found that there was no advantage to using participants’ own metacognitive judgements compared to those from the new group to predict change blindness duration, suggesting that differences among images (rather among individuals) contribute the most to change blindness. Finally, in Experiment 3, we investigated whether metacognitive judgements are based on the semantic similarity between the versions of the scene. One group of participants described the two versions of the scenes, and an independent group rated the similarity between the descriptions. We found that changes rated as more similar were judged as being more difficult to detect than changes rated as less similar; however, semantic similarity (based on linguistic descriptions) did not predict change blindness. These findings reveal that (1) people can rate the relative difficulty of different changes and predict change blindness for different images and (2) metacognitive judgements of change detection likelihood are not fully explained by low-level and semantic image properties.
Center for Open Science
Title: Metacognitive judgements of change detection predict change blindness
Description:
People tend to think they are not susceptible to change blindness and overestimate their ability to detect salient changes in scenes.
Yet, despite their overconfidence, are individuals aware of and able to assess the relative difficulty of such changes? Here, we investigated whether participants’ judgements of their ability to detect changes predicted their own change blindness.
In Experiment 1, participants completed a standard change blindness task in which they viewed alternating versions of scenes until they detected what changed between the versions.
Then, 6 to 7 months later, the same participants viewed the two versions and rated how likely they would be to spot the change.
We found that changes rated as more likely to be spotted were detected faster than changes rated as more unlikely to be spotted.
These metacognitive judgements continued to predict change blindness when accounting for low-level image properties (i.
e.
, change size and eccentricity).
In Experiment 2, we used likelihood ratings from a new group of participants to predict change blindness durations from Experiment 1.
We found that there was no advantage to using participants’ own metacognitive judgements compared to those from the new group to predict change blindness duration, suggesting that differences among images (rather among individuals) contribute the most to change blindness.
Finally, in Experiment 3, we investigated whether metacognitive judgements are based on the semantic similarity between the versions of the scene.
One group of participants described the two versions of the scenes, and an independent group rated the similarity between the descriptions.
We found that changes rated as more similar were judged as being more difficult to detect than changes rated as less similar; however, semantic similarity (based on linguistic descriptions) did not predict change blindness.
These findings reveal that (1) people can rate the relative difficulty of different changes and predict change blindness for different images and (2) metacognitive judgements of change detection likelihood are not fully explained by low-level and semantic image properties.

Related Results

Theology of Blindness in the Hebrew Scriptures
Theology of Blindness in the Hebrew Scriptures
Problem: A number of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures discuss blindness. Scholars have studied them individually, but not with a view to developing a theology of blindness. The pu...
Contributions of age and clinical depression to metacognitive performance
Contributions of age and clinical depression to metacognitive performance
AbstractBackgroundPivotal for adaptive behaviour is the ability to judge whether our performance is correct or not, even in the absence of external feedback. This metacognitive abi...
Curiosity can influence metacognitive processes
Curiosity can influence metacognitive processes
Abstract Prior research suggests a link between curiosity and metacognition, but how curiosity is involved in two key metacognitive processes – metacognitive monitoring (...
When I Leave… Exploring the Being and Appearance of Blindness
When I Leave… Exploring the Being and Appearance of Blindness
This work explores the conventional ways that blindness and sight are differentiated. It makes use of this differentiation to establish first, how it imagines that such a differenc...
Metacognitive awareness levels of pre-service teachers
Metacognitive awareness levels of pre-service teachers
The effectiveness of teachers' use of their metacognitive skills is closely related to the success of the learning process. Nowadays, it is imperative for students to use self-regu...
The many facets of metacognition: comparing multiple measures of metacognition in healthy individuals
The many facets of metacognition: comparing multiple measures of metacognition in healthy individuals
AbstractMetacognition is important for successful goal-directed behavior. It consists of two main elements: metacognitive knowledge and online awareness. Online awareness consists ...
Metacognitive training facilitates optimal cognitive offloading
Metacognitive training facilitates optimal cognitive offloading
Cognitive offloading refers to the use of physical action and the externalenvironment to reduce cognitive demand. Offloading strategies such as creatingexternal reminders instead o...

Back to Top