In a change deafness manipulation using radio broadcasts of sporting events, we show that change deafness to a switch in talker increases when listeners are asked to monitor both lexical and indexical information for change. We held semantic content constant and demonstrated a change deafness rate of 85% when participants listened to the home team broadcast of a hockey game that switched midway to the away team broadcast with a different announcer. In Study 2, participants were asked to monitor either the indexical characteristics (listen for a change in announcer) or both the indexical and semantic components (listen for a change in announcer or a goal scored). Monitoring both components led to significantly greater change deafness even though both groups were alerted to the possibility of a change in announcer. In Study 3, we changed both the indexical and the semantic components when the broadcast switched from a hockey game to a basketball game. We found a negative correlation between sports expertise and change deafness. The results are discussed in terms of the nature of perceptual representation and the influence of expertise and evolution on attention allocation.
AltmanM. N.KhislayskyA. L.CoverdaleM. E.GilgerJ. W. (2016). Adaptive attention: How preference for animacy impacts change detection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 303–314. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.006
3.
AsutayE.VastfjallD. (2014). Emotional bias in change deafness in multisource auditory environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 27–32. doi:10.1037/a0032791
4.
BackerK. C.AlainC. (2012). Orienting attention to sound object representations attenuates change deafness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1554–1566. doi:10.1037/a0027858
5.
BarascudN.GriffithsT. D.McAlpineD.ChaitM. (2014). “Change deafness” arising from inter-feature masking within a single auditory object. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 514–528. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00481
6.
BeckM. R.MartinB. A.SmithermanE.GaschenL. (2013). Eyes-on training and radiological expertise: An examination of expertise development and its effects on visual working memory. Human Factors, 55, 747–763. doi:10.1177/0018720812469224
7.
BinfordJ. R.LoebM. (1966). Changes within and over repeated sessions in criterion and effective sensitivity in an auditory vigilance task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 339–345. doi:10.1037/h0023633
BoloixE. (2007). The representation of visual scenes: New insight from change blindness studies. L’Annee Psychologique, 107, 459–487.
10.
BrendelE.HechtH.DeLuciaP. R.GamerM. (2014). Emotional effects on time-to-contact judgments: Arousal, threat, and fear of spiders modulate the effect of pictorial content. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 2337–2347. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-3930-0
11.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
12.
CaggianoD. M.ParasuramanR. (2004). The role of memory representation in the vigilance decrement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 932–937. doi:10.3758/bf03196724
13.
CalvilloD. P.HawkinsW. C. (2016). Animate objects are detected more frequently than inanimate objects in inattentional blindness tasks independently of threat. Journal of General Psychology, 143, 101–115. doi:10.1080/00221309.2016.1163249
14.
CalvilloD. P.JacksonR. E. (2014). Animacy, perceptual load, and inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 670–675. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0543-8
15.
Canal-BrulandR.LotzS.HagemannN.SchorerJ.StraussB. (2011). Visual span and change detection in soccer: An expertise study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 302–310. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.496723
16.
CherryE. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979. doi:10.1121/1.1907229
17.
CohenM. A.DennettD. C.KanwisherN. (2016). What is the bandwidth of perceptual experience?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 324–335. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.03.006
18.
ConstantinoF. C.PinggeraL.ParanamanaS.KashinoM.ChaitM. (2012). Detection of appearing and disappearing objects in complex acoustic scenes. PLoS ONE, 7, e46167. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046167
19.
CurranT.GibsonL.HorneJ. H.YoungB.BozellA. P. (2009). Expert image analysts show enhanced visual processing in change detection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 390–397. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.390
20.
DaltonP.FraenkelN. (2012). Gorillas we have missed: Sustained inattentional deafness for dynamic events. Cognition, 124, 367–372. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.012
21.
DemanyL.TrostW.SermanM.SemalC. (2008). Auditory change detection—Simple sounds are not memorized better than complex sounds. Psychological Science, 19, 85–91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02050.x
22.
DickersonK.GastonJ. R. (2014). Did you hear that? The role of stimulus similarity and uncertainty in auditory change deafness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1125.
23.
EplingS. L.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2016). A new semantic vigilance task: Vigilance decrement, workload, and sensitivity to dual-task costs. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 133–139. doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4444-0
24.
EramudugollaR.IrvineD. R. F.McAnallyK. I.MartinR. L.MattingleyJ. B. (2005). Directed attention eliminates ‘Change deafness’ in complex auditory scenes. Current Biology, 15, 1108–1113. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.051
25.
FeldmanJ. (2013). Tuning your priors to the world. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 13–34. doi:10.1111/tops.12003
26.
FennK. M.ShintelH.AtkinsA. S.SkipperJ. I.BondV. C.NusbaumH. C. (2011). When less is heard than meets the ear: Change deafness in a telephone conversation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1442–1456. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.570353
27.
GagnonK. T.GeussM. N.StefanucciJ. K. (2013). Fear influences perceived reaching to targets in audition, but not vision. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 49–54. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.09.002
28.
GasparJ. G.NeiderM. B.SimonsD. J.McCarleyJ. S.KramerA. F. (2013). Change detection: Training and transfer. PLoS ONE, 8, e67781. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067781
29.
GreggM. K.IrsikV. C.SnyderJ. S. (2014). Change deafness and object encoding with recognizable and unrecognizable sounds. Neuropsychologia, 61, 19–30. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.007
30.
GreggM. K.SnyderJ. S. (2012). Enhanced sensory processing accompanies successful detection of change for real-world sounds. Neuroimage, 62, 113–119. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.057
31.
HaseltonM. G.BryantG. A.WilkeA.FrederickD. A.GalperinA.FrankenhuisW. E.MooreT. (2009). Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias. Social Cognition, 27, 733–763.
32.
HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.81
33.
HeltonW. S.RussellP. N. (2013). Visuospatial and verbal working memory load: Effects on visuospatial vigilance. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 429–436. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3322-2
34.
HeltonW. S.RussellP. N. (2015). Rest is best: The role of rest and task interruptions on vigilance. Cognition, 134, 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.001
35.
HoffmanD. D.SinghM.PrakashC. (2015). The interface theory of perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1480–1506. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8
36.
HoldenC. J.DennieT.HicksA. D. (2013). Assessing the reliability of the M5-120 on Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1749–1754. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.020
37.
IrsikV. C.NederlandenC.SnyderJ. S. (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. doi:10.1037/xhp0000266
38.
JensenM. S.YaoR.StreetW. N.SimonsD. J. (2011). Change blindness and inattentional blindness. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 529–546. doi:10.1002/wcs.130
39.
KawashimaT. (2015). Change deafness for simultaneous voices. Japanese Psychological Research, 57, 206–217. doi:10.1111/jpr.12088
40.
MarkJ. T.MarionB. B.HoffmanD. D. (2010). Natural selection and veridical perceptions. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 266, 504–515. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.07.020
41.
MasonW.SuriS. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
42.
McAnallyK. I.MartinR. L.EramudugollaR.StuartG. W.IrvineD. R. F.MattingleyJ. B. (2010). A dual-process account of auditory change detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 994–1004. doi:10.1037/a0016895
43.
McBrideS. A.MerulloD. J.JohnsonR. F.BanderetL. E.RobinsonR. T. (2007). Performance during a 3-hour simulated sentry duty task under varied work rates and secondary task demands. Military Psychology, 19, 103–117. doi:10.1080/08995600701323392
44.
MullennixJ. W.PisoniD. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 379–390.
45.
NeuhoffJ. G. (1998). Perceptual bias for rising tones. Nature, 395, 123–124. doi:10.1038/25862
46.
NeuhoffJ. G. (2001). An adaptive bias in the perception of looming auditory motion. Ecological Psychology, 13, 87–110.
47.
NeuhoffJ. G. (2016). Looming Sounds are Perceived as Faster than Receding Sounds. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 15. doi:10.1186/s41235-016-0017-4
48.
NeuhoffJ. G.PlanisekR.SeifritzE. (2009). Adaptive sex differences in auditory motion perception: Looming sounds are special. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 225–234. doi:10.1037/a0013159
49.
NeuhoffJ. G.SchottS. A.KropfA. J.NeuhoffE. M. (2014). Familiarity, expertise, and change detection: Change deafness is worse in your native language. Perception, 43, 219–222. doi:10.1068/p7665
NewJ.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 16598–16603. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703913104
52.
NieuwandM. S.Van BerkumJ. J. A. (2005). Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 691–701. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.04.003
53.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
PisoniD. B. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 9–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
56.
PuschmannS.SandmannP.AhrensJ.ThorneJ.WeerdaR.KlumpG., . . . ThielC. M. (2013). Electrophysiological correlates of auditory change detection and change deafness in complex auditory scenes. Neuroimage, 75, 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.037
57.
SchnuerchR.KreitzC.HeilM.LangeK. (2014). The change-deafness phenomenon in harmonic chords. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 73, 143–152. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000136
58.
SimonsD. J.ChabrisC. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074. doi:10.1068/p2952
59.
SimonsD. J.RensinkR. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 16–20. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006
60.
SmartS. M.BerryM. A.RodriguezD. N. (2014). Skilled observation and change blindness: A comparison of law enforcement and student samples. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 590–596. doi:10.1002/acp.3021
61.
SohogluE.ChaitM. (2016). Neural dynamics of change detection in crowded acoustic scenes. NeuroImage, 126, 164–172. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.050
62.
StefanucciJ. K.GagnonK. T.TompkinsC. L.BullockK. E. (2012). Plunging into the pool of death: Imagining a dangerous outcome influences distance perception. Perception, 41, 1–11. doi:10.1068/p7131
63.
TomonagaM.ImuraT. (2015). CHANGE they can’t find: Change blindness in chimpanzees during a visual search task. i-Perception, 6. doi:10.1068/i0708sas
64.
VagnoniE.LourencoS. F.LongoM. R. (2012). Threat modulates perception of looming visual stimuli. Current Biology, 22, R826–R827. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.053
65.
VagnoniE.LourencoS. F.LongoM. R. (2015). Threat modulates neural responses to looming visual stimuli. European Journal of Neuroscience, 42, 2190–2202. doi:10.1111/ejn.12998
66.
VitevitchM. S. (2003). Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 333–342. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.333
67.
VitevitchM. S.DonosoA. (2011). Processing of indexical information requires time: Evidence from change deafness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1484–1493. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.578749
68.
WangS.TsuchiyaN.NewJ.HurlemannR.AdolphsR. (2015). Preferential attention to animals and people is independent of the amygdala. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 371–380. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu065
69.
WernerS.ThiesB. (2000). Is “change blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7, 163–173.
70.
WittJ. K.SugovicM. (2013). Spiders appear to move faster than non-threatening objects regardless of one’s ability to block them. Acta Psychologica, 143, 284–291. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.04.011
71.
ZhaoN.ChenW. F.XuanY. M.MehlerB.ReimerB.FuX. L. (2014). Drivers’ and non-drivers’ performance in a change detection task with static driving scenes: Is there a benefit of experience?Ergonomics, 57, 998–1007. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.909952
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
