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.
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...
Metacognitive domain specificity in feeling-of-knowing but not retrospective confidence
Metacognitive domain specificity in feeling-of-knowing but not retrospective confidence
Previous research has converged on the idea that metacognitive evaluations of memory dissociate between semantic and episodic memory tasks, even if the type of metacognitive judgem...
Metacognitive Regularities and Their Future Implications for Knowledge Management Theory: A Systematic Review
Metacognitive Regularities and Their Future Implications for Knowledge Management Theory: A Systematic Review
This literature review studies the developing landscape of metacognitive regularities and explores how do metacognitive regularities, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation, ...
SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENCE AND METACOGNITIVE THINKING: THE MEDIATING EFFECTS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENCE AND METACOGNITIVE THINKING: THE MEDIATING EFFECTS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
This study investigates the direct effects of successful intelligence on metacognitive thinking and SED, the direct impact of SED on metacognitive thinking, and the indirect role o...
Contributions of age and clinical depression to metacognitive performance
Contributions of age and clinical depression to metacognitive performance
Abstract
Background
Pivotal for adaptive behaviour is the ability to judge whether our performance is correct or not, even in t...
Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making
Action information contributes to metacognitive decision-making
Abstract
Monitoring and control of our decision process are key ingredients of adept decision-making. Such metacognitive abilities allow us to adjust ongoing behavi...
STUDENTS’ METACOGNITIVE AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IN THERMOCHEMISTRY
STUDENTS’ METACOGNITIVE AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IN THERMOCHEMISTRY
Metacognitive is the ability to control cognitive aspects, while critical thinking is the ability to think rationally and clearly in understanding the logical connections between v...
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 moni...

