3 ms·

from the article: > Chapman always sent two vehicles from opposite sides of the road during those trials — either a car and a car, or a car and a motorcycle. T

from the article: > Chapman always sent two vehicles from opposite sides of the road during those trials — either a car and a car, or a car and a motorcycle. Then, right after the participant pulled out, he would stop the test and ask them to use a laser pointer to point where the oncoming vehicle(s) had been on the screen. > What Chapman found was that, every once in a while, there were instances where the driver had failed to report seeing the motorcycle and the car, even though an eye tracking device showed that they clearly looked at the oncoming vehicles. But he also found that participants were much more likely to miss the motorcyclist than the car driver.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I read TFA (hence my question). That passage you quoted (nor any other part of the article) does not answer my question as for how this is different than constant bearing decreasing range accidents which also happen more with "smaller than the observer is used to" objects. Basically your brain thinks the object is static (or slow moving enough to be static for all practical purposes) and stops processing there. I still fail to see this is not just a subset of that.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  The picture shows clear target fixation on the motorcycle. So active processing, and common sense indicates that a motorcycle in the middle of a street is actually moving. Later when the motorcycle is only in peripheral vision, it's quite likely that constant bearing decreasing range contributes to the motorcycle being forgotten. But this doesn't change the thesis, which says that the motorcycle is more likely to be forgotten because it's smaller. Because it's smaller, it's more likely to have the constant bearing decreasing range error, which means it's more likely to be forgotten. To summarize: the effect may be useful in understanding why this happens, but doesn't change the thesis.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I read TFA (hence my question). That passage you quoted (nor any other part of the article) does not answer my question as for how this is different than constant bearing decreasing range accidents which also happen more with "smaller than the observer is used to" objects. Basically your brain thinks the object is static (or slow moving enough to be static for all practical purposes) and stops processing there. I still fail to see this is not just a subset of that.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
The picture shows clear target fixation on the motorcycle. So active processing, and common sense indicates that a motorcycle in the middle of a street is actually moving. Later when the motorcycle is only in peripheral vision, it's quite likely that constant bearing decreasing range contributes to the motorcycle being forgotten. But this doesn't change the thesis, which says that the motorcycle is more likely to be forgotten because it's smaller. Because it's smaller, it's more likely to have the constant bearing decreasing range error, which means it's more likely to be forgotten. To summarize: the effect may be useful in understanding why this happens, but doesn't change the thesis.