Jump to content

User:Isaac Mervis/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
See "Revision Notes"
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://journal.frontiersin.org/researchtopic/1535/olfactory-consciousness-across-disciplines|title=Olfactory Consciousness across Disciplines|website=Frontiers|access-date=2016-10-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Neuhoff|first=John G.|last2=Wayand|first2=Joseph|last3=Ndiaye|first3=Mamoudou C.|last4=Berkow|first4=Ann B.|last5=Bertacchi|first5=Breanna R.|last6=Benton|first6=Catherine A.|date=2015-03-19|title=Slow change deafness|url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-015-0871-z|journal=Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics|language=en|volume=77|issue=4|pages=1189–1199|doi=10.3758/s13414-015-0871-z|issn=1943-3921}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XgnEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=%2522Tactile+and+visual+distractors+induce+change+blindness+for+tactile+stimuli+presented+on+the+fingertips%2522.&source=bl&ots=v4E8ze8GcN&sig=jFTrWWwEuTueTg3vdrvq5k-b2fc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio3MaXx7jPAhXMdT4KHdNJA10Q6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=%2522Tactile%2520and%2520visual%2520distractors%2520induce%2520change%2520blindness%2520for%2520tactile%2520stimuli%2520presented%2520on%2520the%2520fingertips%2522.&f=false|title=In touch with the future: The sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality|last=Gallace|first=Alberto|last2=Spence|first2=Charles|date=2014-01-30|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=9780191501807|language=en}}</ref>In addition to change blindness induced by changes in visual images, change blindness also exists for the other senses:
In addition to change blindness induced by changes in visual images, change blindness also exists for the other senses:
* ''[[Change deafness|<big>Change deafness</big>]]'' – Change deafness is the concept of change blindness for auditory information.'''<u>[40]</u>''' In his experiment, Vitevitch (2003) used a [[Speech shadowing]] task to demonstrate change deafness. He presented a list of words to participants and had them simultaneously repeat the words they heard. Halfway through the list, either the same or a different speaker presented the second half of the words to participants. At least 40% of particpants failed to detect the change in speaker when it occurred.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Vitevitch|first=Michael S.|date=2003-04-01|title=Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices.|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayrecord&uid=2003-00308-007|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance|language=English|volume=29|issue=2|pages=333–342|doi=10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.333|issn=1939-1277|pmc=2553696|pmid=12760619}}</ref> Fenn et al called participants on the phone and replaced the speaker in the middle of the conversation. Participants rarely noticed change. However, when explicitly monitoring for change, the participants' detection increased.Neuhoff et. al (2015) expanded on the idea of change deafness, and identified a new phenomenon called “slow-change deafness” using a series of four experiments. In the first experiment, he had participants listen to continuous speech that changed three semitones in pitch over time. 50% of participants failed to notice the change. In the second and third experiments, listeners were alerted to the possibility of a change. In these trials, detection rates drastically improved. In the fourth experiment, the magnitude of the change that occurred in the stimulus increased, causing the detection rates to increase. These experiments demonstrated that “slow-change deafness” depends on both the magnitude of a stimulus change and the listeners’ expectations.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fenn|first=Kimberly M.|last2=Shintel|first2=Hadas|last3=Atkins|first3=Alexandra S.|last4=Skipper|first4=Jeremy I.|last5=Bond|first5=Veronica C.|last6=Nusbaum|first6=Howard C.|date=2011-07-01|title=When less is heard than meets the ear: change deafness in a telephone conversation|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604232|journal=Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006)|volume=64|issue=7|pages=1442–1456|doi=10.1080/17470218.2011.570353|issn=1747-0226|pmid=21604232}}</ref>
* ''[[Change deafness|<big>Change deafness</big>]]'' – Change deafness is the concept of change blindness for auditory information.'''<u>[40]</u>''' In his experiment, Vitevitch (2003) used a [[Speech shadowing]] task to demonstrate change deafness. He presented a list of words to participants and had them simultaneously repeat the words they heard. Halfway through the list, either the same or a different speaker presented the second half of the words to participants. At least 40% of particpants failed to detect the change in speaker when it occurred.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Vitevitch|first=Michael S.|date=2003-04-01|title=Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices.|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayrecord&uid=2003-00308-007|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance|language=English|volume=29|issue=2|pages=333–342|doi=10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.333|issn=1939-1277|pmc=2553696|pmid=12760619}}</ref> Fenn et al called participants on the phone and replaced the speaker in the middle of the conversation. Participants rarely noticed change. However, when explicitly monitoring for change, the participants' detection increased. Neuhoff et. al (2015) expanded on the idea of change deafness, and identified a new phenomenon called “slow-change deafness” using a series of four experiments. In the first experiment, he had participants listen to continuous speech that changed three semitones in pitch over time. 50% of participants failed to notice the change. In the second and third experiments, listeners were alerted to the possibility of a change. In these trials, detection rates drastically improved. In the fourth experiment, the magnitude of the change that occurred in the stimulus increased, causing the detection rates to increase. These experiments demonstrated that “slow-change deafness” depends on both the magnitude of a stimulus change and the listeners’ expectations.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fenn|first=Kimberly M.|last2=Shintel|first2=Hadas|last3=Atkins|first3=Alexandra S.|last4=Skipper|first4=Jeremy I.|last5=Bond|first5=Veronica C.|last6=Nusbaum|first6=Howard C.|date=2011-07-01|title=When less is heard than meets the ear: change deafness in a telephone conversation|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604232|journal=Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006)|volume=64|issue=7|pages=1442–1456|doi=10.1080/17470218.2011.570353|issn=1747-0226|pmid=21604232}}</ref>
* [[Olfaction|''<big>Olfactory</big>'']] – Humans are constantly in a state of change blindness due to the poor spatial and temporal resolutions with which scents are detected.'''<u>[41]</u>''' Although, humans' odor detection thresholds are very low, our olfactory attention is only captured by unusually high odorant concentrations. Olfactory input is made up of a series of sniffs separated in time. The long inter-sniff-interval creates "change anosmia," in which humans have trouble discerning smells that are not highly concentrated. This period of sensory habituation as well as very low concentrations of odorants regularly yield no subjective experience. This behavior is called “experiential nothingness.” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sela|first=Lee|last2=Sobel|first2=Noam|date=2010-08-01|title=Human olfaction: a constant state of change-blindness|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20603708|journal=Experimental Brain Research|volume=205|issue=1|pages=13–29|doi=10.1007/s00221-010-2348-6|issn=1432-1106|pmc=2908748|pmid=20603708}}</ref>
* [[Olfaction|''<big>Olfactory</big>'']] – Humans are constantly in a state of change blindness due to the poor spatial and temporal resolutions with which scents are detected.'''<u>[41]</u>''' Although, humans' odor detection thresholds are very low, our olfactory attention is only captured by unusually high odorant concentrations. Olfactory input is made up of a series of sniffs separated in time. The long inter-sniff-interval creates "change anosmia," in which humans have trouble discerning smells that are not highly concentrated. This period of sensory habituation as well as very low concentrations of odorants regularly yield no subjective experience. This behavior is called “experiential nothingness.” <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sela|first=Lee|last2=Sobel|first2=Noam|date=2010-08-01|title=Human olfaction: a constant state of change-blindness|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20603708|journal=Experimental Brain Research|volume=205|issue=1|pages=13–29|doi=10.1007/s00221-010-2348-6|issn=1432-1106|pmc=2908748|pmid=20603708}}</ref>
* [[Somatosensory system|''<big>Somatosensory</big>'']] – Somatosensory change blindness for tactile stimuli has been observed, and reveals important information about the distinction from visual change blindness.[42] Auvray et. al (2008) did an experiment on the ability to detect change between two patterns of tactile stimuli presented to fingertips. The experiments presented consecutive patterns which were separated by an empty interval, or by a tactile, visual, or auditory mask. Results showed that performance was impaired when the empty interval was inserted, and even more so when tactile mask was introduced. Changes in tactile displays composed of two or three stimuli with only one distractor in between go unnoticed, while several distractors are needed for visual displays to go unnoticed. These experiments have shown us that our ability to monitor tactile information is affected by more severe limitations than the same ability within the visual modality. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Auvray|first=Malika|last2=Gallace|first2=Alberto|last3=Hartcher-O'Brien|first3=Jess|last4=Tan|first4=Hong Z.|last5=Spence|first5=Charles|date=2008-06-05|title=Tactile and visual distractors induce change blindness for tactile stimuli presented on the fingertips|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448084|journal=Brain Research|volume=1213|pages=111–119|doi=10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.015|issn=0006-8993|pmid=18448084}}</ref>{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}Peer review - It seems possible to expand on some of the procedures to make them more clear. For example, in the somatosensory portion, I'm not sure what the mudsplash paradigm is. I'm not sure if this is in the overall article and needs to be explained here, but if it isn't that might be helpful. Otherwise, it seems pretty good. Concise and to the point, good job.
* [[Somatosensory system|''<big>Somatosensory</big>'']] – Somatosensory change blindness for tactile stimuli has been observed, and reveals important information about the distinction from visual change blindness.[42] Auvray et. al (2008) did an experiment on the ability to detect change between two patterns of tactile stimuli presented to fingertips. The experiments presented consecutive patterns which were separated by an empty interval, or by a tactile, visual, or auditory mask. Results showed that performance was impaired when the empty interval was inserted, and even more so when tactile mask was introduced. Changes in tactile displays composed of two or three stimuli with only one distractor in between go unnoticed, while several distractors are needed for visual displays to go unnoticed. These experiments have shown us that our ability to monitor tactile information is affected by more severe limitations than the same ability within the visual modality. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Auvray|first=Malika|last2=Gallace|first2=Alberto|last3=Hartcher-O'Brien|first3=Jess|last4=Tan|first4=Hong Z.|last5=Spence|first5=Charles|date=2008-06-05|title=Tactile and visual distractors induce change blindness for tactile stimuli presented on the fingertips|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448084|journal=Brain Research|volume=1213|pages=111–119|doi=10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.015|issn=0006-8993|pmid=18448084}}</ref>{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}Peer review - It seems possible to expand on some of the procedures to make them more clear. For example, in the somatosensory portion, I'm not sure what the mudsplash paradigm is. I'm not sure if this is in the overall article and needs to be explained here, but if it isn't that might be helpful. Otherwise, it seems pretty good. Concise and to the point, good job.

Revision Notes:

In this revision, I changed the format of mentioning authors and their studies, clarified the procedures of the studies that I used, and also added more recent sources to provide a more nuanced and contemporary understanding of these topics. For some reason it would not let me cite within my bullet points, so I placed my new citations at the beginning of the article. I will be sure to reach out to our WikiEdu correspondent when it is time to transfer this work to the actual Wiki page to ensure that I can cite them in the appropriate place. For now, I was unable to figure out how to make additional citation within the bullet point paragraphs.

Latest revision as of 02:41, 2 October 2016

[1][2][3]In addition to change blindness induced by changes in visual images, change blindness also exists for the other senses:

  • Change deafness – Change deafness is the concept of change blindness for auditory information.[40] In his experiment, Vitevitch (2003) used a Speech shadowing task to demonstrate change deafness. He presented a list of words to participants and had them simultaneously repeat the words they heard. Halfway through the list, either the same or a different speaker presented the second half of the words to participants. At least 40% of particpants failed to detect the change in speaker when it occurred.[4] Fenn et al called participants on the phone and replaced the speaker in the middle of the conversation. Participants rarely noticed change. However, when explicitly monitoring for change, the participants' detection increased. Neuhoff et. al (2015) expanded on the idea of change deafness, and identified a new phenomenon called “slow-change deafness” using a series of four experiments. In the first experiment, he had participants listen to continuous speech that changed three semitones in pitch over time. 50% of participants failed to notice the change. In the second and third experiments, listeners were alerted to the possibility of a change. In these trials, detection rates drastically improved. In the fourth experiment, the magnitude of the change that occurred in the stimulus increased, causing the detection rates to increase. These experiments demonstrated that “slow-change deafness” depends on both the magnitude of a stimulus change and the listeners’ expectations.[5]
  • Olfactory – Humans are constantly in a state of change blindness due to the poor spatial and temporal resolutions with which scents are detected.[41] Although, humans' odor detection thresholds are very low, our olfactory attention is only captured by unusually high odorant concentrations. Olfactory input is made up of a series of sniffs separated in time. The long inter-sniff-interval creates "change anosmia," in which humans have trouble discerning smells that are not highly concentrated. This period of sensory habituation as well as very low concentrations of odorants regularly yield no subjective experience. This behavior is called “experiential nothingness.” [6]
  • Somatosensory – Somatosensory change blindness for tactile stimuli has been observed, and reveals important information about the distinction from visual change blindness.[42] Auvray et. al (2008) did an experiment on the ability to detect change between two patterns of tactile stimuli presented to fingertips. The experiments presented consecutive patterns which were separated by an empty interval, or by a tactile, visual, or auditory mask. Results showed that performance was impaired when the empty interval was inserted, and even more so when tactile mask was introduced. Changes in tactile displays composed of two or three stimuli with only one distractor in between go unnoticed, while several distractors are needed for visual displays to go unnoticed. These experiments have shown us that our ability to monitor tactile information is affected by more severe limitations than the same ability within the visual modality. [7]Peer review - It seems possible to expand on some of the procedures to make them more clear. For example, in the somatosensory portion, I'm not sure what the mudsplash paradigm is. I'm not sure if this is in the overall article and needs to be explained here, but if it isn't that might be helpful. Otherwise, it seems pretty good. Concise and to the point, good job.

Revision Notes:

In this revision, I changed the format of mentioning authors and their studies, clarified the procedures of the studies that I used, and also added more recent sources to provide a more nuanced and contemporary understanding of these topics. For some reason it would not let me cite within my bullet points, so I placed my new citations at the beginning of the article. I will be sure to reach out to our WikiEdu correspondent when it is time to transfer this work to the actual Wiki page to ensure that I can cite them in the appropriate place. For now, I was unable to figure out how to make additional citation within the bullet point paragraphs.

  1. ^ "Olfactory Consciousness across Disciplines". Frontiers. Retrieved 2016-10-02.
  2. ^ Neuhoff, John G.; Wayand, Joseph; Ndiaye, Mamoudou C.; Berkow, Ann B.; Bertacchi, Breanna R.; Benton, Catherine A. (2015-03-19). "Slow change deafness". Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 77 (4): 1189–1199. doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0871-z. ISSN 1943-3921.
  3. ^ Gallace, Alberto; Spence, Charles (2014-01-30). In touch with the future: The sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. OUP Oxford. ISBN 9780191501807.
  4. ^ Vitevitch, Michael S. (2003-04-01). "Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 29 (2): 333–342. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.333. ISSN 1939-1277. PMC 2553696. PMID 12760619.
  5. ^ Fenn, Kimberly M.; Shintel, Hadas; Atkins, Alexandra S.; Skipper, Jeremy I.; Bond, Veronica C.; Nusbaum, Howard C. (2011-07-01). "When less is heard than meets the ear: change deafness in a telephone conversation". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006). 64 (7): 1442–1456. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.570353. ISSN 1747-0226. PMID 21604232.
  6. ^ Sela, Lee; Sobel, Noam (2010-08-01). "Human olfaction: a constant state of change-blindness". Experimental Brain Research. 205 (1): 13–29. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2348-6. ISSN 1432-1106. PMC 2908748. PMID 20603708.
  7. ^ Auvray, Malika; Gallace, Alberto; Hartcher-O'Brien, Jess; Tan, Hong Z.; Spence, Charles (2008-06-05). "Tactile and visual distractors induce change blindness for tactile stimuli presented on the fingertips". Brain Research. 1213: 111–119. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.015. ISSN 0006-8993. PMID 18448084.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Isaac_Mervis/sandbox&oldid=742166786"