Rensink, O’Regan, and Clark drew attention to the phenomenon of change blindness, in which even large changes can be difficult to notice if made during the appearance of motion transients elsewhere in the image. This article provides a sketch of the events that inspired that article as well as its subsequent impact on psychological science and on society at large.
AkinsK. A. (Ed.). (1996). Vancouver studies in cognitive science: Perception (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
BallF.BuschN. A. (2015). Change detection on a hunch: Pre-attentive vision allows “sensing” of unique feature changes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 2570–2588.
3.
BoyceS. J.PollatsekA. (1992). Identification of objects in scenes: The role of scene background in object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 531–543.
4.
BradyT. F.KonkleT.AlvarezG. A. (2011). A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations. Journal of Vision, 11(5), Article 4. doi:10.1167/11.5.4
5.
CohenM. A.DennettD. C.KanwisherN. (2016). What is the bandwidth of perceptual experience?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 324–335.
6.
FrenchR. S. (1953). The discrimination of dot patterns as a function of number and average separation of dots. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 1–9.
7.
GalpinA.UnderwoodG.ChapmanP. (2008). Sensing without seeing in comparative visual search. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 672–687.
8.
GrimesJ. (1996). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. In AkinsK. (Ed.), Vancouver studies in cognitive science: Perception (Vol. 5, pp. 89–110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
HochbergJ. (1968). In the mind’s eye. In HaberR. N. (Ed.), Contemporary theory and research in visual perception (pp. 309–331). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
JonesB. T.JonesB. C.SmithH.CopleyN. (2003). A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction, 98, 235–244.
12.
LuckS. J.VogelE. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–280.
13.
MackA.RockI. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
MalcolmG. L.GroenI. I. A.BakerC. I. (2016). Making sense of real-world scenes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 843–856.
15.
McConkieG. W.ZolaD. (1979). Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading?Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 221–224.
16.
NeisserU. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
17.
OlivaA. (2013). Scene perception. In WernerJ. S.ChalupaL. M. (Eds.), The new visual neurosciences (pp. 725–732). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
OlivaA.TorralbaA. (2001). Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal in Computer Vision, 42, 145–175.
19.
O’ReganJ. K. (1992). Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 461–488.
20.
PhillipsW. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 283–290.
21.
RensinkR. A. (2000a). The dynamic representation of scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 17–42.
22.
RensinkR. A. (2000b). Visual search for change: A probe into the nature of attentional processing. Visual Cognition, 7, 345–376.
23.
RensinkR. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.
24.
RensinkR. A. (2004). Visual sensing without seeing. Psychological Science, 15, 27–32.
25.
RensinkR. A. (2011). The management of visual attention in graphic displays. In RodaC. (Ed.), Human attention in digital environments (pp. 63–92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RensinkR. A. (2014). Limits to the usability of iconic memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 971. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00971
27.
RensinkR. A. (2015). A function-centered taxonomy of visual attention. In CoatesP.ColemanS. (Eds.), Phenomenal qualities: Sense, perception, and consciousness (pp. 347–375). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28.
RensinkR. A.O’ReganJ. K.ClarkJ. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373.
SimonsD. J. (1996). In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail. Psychological Science, 7, 301–305.
31.
SimonsD. J.LevinD. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644–649.
32.
SimonsD. J.NavarezG.BootW. R. (2005). Visual sensing IS seeing: Why “mindsight,” in hindsight, is blind. Psychological Science, 16, 520–524.
33.
SligteI. G.ScholteH. S.LammeV. A. F. (2008). Are there multiple visual short-term memory stores?PLOS ONE, 3(2), Article e1699. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001699
34.
van BoxtelJ. J. A.TsuchiyaN.KochC. (2010). Consciousness and attention: On sufficiency and necessity. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 217. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00217
35.
WareC. (2013). Information visualization: Perception for design (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Morgan Kaufmann.
36.
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.
