Abstract
Abstract. Previous research on inattentional blindness (IB) has focused almost entirely on the visual modality. This study extends the paradigm by pairing visual with auditory stimuli. New visual and auditory stimuli were created to investigate the phenomenon of inattention in visual, auditory, and paired modality. The goal of the study was to assess to what extent the pairing of visual and auditory modality fosters the detection of change. Participants watched a video sequence and counted predetermined words in a spoken text. IB and inattentional deafness occurred in about 40% of participants when attention was engaged by this difficult (auditory) counting task. Most importantly, participants detected the changes considerably more often (88%) when the change occurred in both modalities rather than just one. One possible reason for the drastic reduction of IB or deafness in a multimodal context is that discrepancy between expected and encountered course of events proportionally increases across sensory modalities.
References
(1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979. 10.1121/1.1907229
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
(2015). “Ich sehe was, das du nicht hörst…” Inwiefern verändert sich die Wahrnehmung bei gepaarten visuellen und auditiven Stimuli? (Unpublished master’s thesis). Klagenfurt, Austria: Universität Klagenfurt.
(2019). Detecting changes in multimodal setting. Retrieved from https://osf.io/sy8dq
(2012). Gorillas we have missed: Sustained inattentional deafness for dynamic events. Cognition, 124, 367–372. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.012
(1997). Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities. Nature, 387, 808–810. 10.1038/42947
(2005). Directed attention eliminates “change deafness” in complex auditory scenes. Current Biology, 15, 1108–1013. 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.051
(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146
(2011). When less is heard than meets the ear: Change deafness in a telephone conversation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1442–1456. 10.1080/17470218.2011.570353
(2009). Conflicts between expected and actually performed behavior lead to verbal report of incidentally acquired sequential knowledge. Psychological Research, 73, 817–834. 10.1007/s00426-008-0199-6
. (2015). The surprise-attention link: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339(1), 106–115. 10.1111/nyas.12679
(2016). Broad attention to multiple individual objects may facilitate change detection with complex auditory scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1806–1817. 10.1037/xhp0000266
(2014). Inattentional deafness in music. Psychological Research, 78, 304–312. 10.1007/s00426-014-0552-x
(2011). Visual perceptual load induces inattentional deafness. Attention Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1780–1789. 10.3758/s13414-011-0144-4
(1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
(1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480–494. 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90019-5
(2008). Auditory attention causes visual inattentional blindness. Perception, 37, 859–866. 10.1068/p5723
(1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25. 10.1080/00335558008248231
(2015). Load-induced inattentional deafness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 483–492. 10.3758/s13414-014-0776-2
(2001). Processing of irrelevant visual motion during performance of an auditory attention task. Neuropsychologia, 39, 937–949. 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00016-1
(2019). The cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise: A review of the evidence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), 50–74. 10.1111/tops.12292
(2008). How incidental sequence learning creates reportable knowledge: The role of unexpected events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1011–1026. 10.1037/a0012942
(2008). Capturing spatial attention with multisensory cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 398–403. 10.3758/pbr.15.2.398
(1998). Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1182–1199. 10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1182
(1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074. 10.1068/p281059
(2010). Crossmodal spatial attention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 182–200. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05440.x
(1997). Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Perception & Psychophysics, 59(1), 1–22. 10.3758/bf03206843
(2006). Attentional capacity for processing concurrent stimuli is larger across sensory modalities than within a modality. Psychophysiology, 43, 541–549. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00452.x
(2003). Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 333–342. 10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.333
(2011). Processing of indexical information requires time: Evidence from change deafness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1484–1493. 10.1080/17470218.2011.578749
(2005). Inattentional blindness for a noxious multimodal stimulus. The American Journal of Psychology, 118, 339–352.
