5 ms·

Great observation. And not entirely unlike normal human visual perception which is notoriously vulnerable to missing highly salient information; I'm reminded of

Great observation. And not entirely unlike normal human visual perception which is notoriously vulnerable to missing highly salient information; I'm reminded of the "gorillas in our midst" work by Dan Simons and Christopher Chabris [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness#Invisible_Gorilla_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness#Invisi...

bamboozled 2y ago
Are you saying if I turn around, I’ll be surprised at what I find ? I don’t feel like this is accurate at all.
- matheusd 2y ago
  If a generic human glances at an unfamiliar screen/wall/room, can they accurately, pixel-perfectly reconstruct every single element of it? Can they do it for every single screen they have seen in their entire lives?
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    I never said pixel perfect, but I would be surprised if whole objects , like flaming lanterns suddenly appeared. What this demo demonstrates to me is how incredible willing we are to accept what seems familiar to us as accurate. I bet if you look closely and objectively you will see even more anomalies. But at first watch, I didn’t see most errors because I think accepting something is more efficient for the brain.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      You'd likely be surprised by a flaming lantern unless you were in Flaming Lanterns 'R Us, but if you were watching a video of a card trick and the two participants changed clothes while the camera wasn't focused on them, you may well miss that and the other five changes that came with that.
- dewarrn1 2y ago
  Not exactly, but our representation of what's behind us is a lot more sparse than we would assume. That is, I might not be surprised by what I see when I turn around, but it could have changed pretty radically since I last looked, and I might not notice. In fact, an observer might be quite surprised that I missed the change. Objectively, Simons and Chabris (and many others) have a lot of data to support these ideas. Subjectively, I can say that these types of tasks (inattentional blindness, change blindness, etc.) are humbling.
  - jerf 2y ago
    Well, it's a bit of a spoiler to encounter this video in this context, but this is a very good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFMuGBP15U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFMuGBP15U Even having a clue why I'm linking this, I virtually guarantee you won't catch everything. And even if you do catch everything... the real thing to notice is that you had to look. Your brain does not flag these things naturally. Dreams are notorious for this sort of thing, but even in the waking world your model of the world is much less rich than you think. Magic tricks like to hide in this space, for instance.
    - dewarrn1 2y ago
      Yup, great example! Simons's lab has done some things along exactly these lines [0], too. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoMjORwA-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoMjORwA-4
- ajuc 2y ago
  The opposite - if you turn around and there's something that wasn't there the last time - you'll likely not notice if it's not out of place. You'll just assume it was there and you weren't paying attention. We don't memorize things that the environment remembers for us if they aren't relevant for other reasons.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    We also don't just work on images. We work on a lot of sensory data. So i think images of the environment are just one part of it.
lawlessone 2y ago
I reminds me of dreaming. When you do something and turn back to check it has turned into something completely different. edit: someone should train it on MyHouse.wad
robotresearcher 2y ago
Not noticing to a gorilla that ‘shouldn’t’ be there is not the same thing as object permanence. Even quite young babies are surprised by objects that go missing.
- dewarrn1 2y ago
  That's absolutely true. It's also well-established by Simons et al. and others that healthy normal adults maintain only a very sparse visual representation of their surroundings, anchored but not perfectly predicted by attention, and this drives the unattended gorilla phenomenon (along with many others). I don't work in this domain, but I would suggest that object permanence probably starts with attending and perceiving an object, whereas the inattentional or change blindness phenomena mostly (but not exclusively) occur when an object is not attended (or only briefly attended) or attention is divided by some competing task.
throwway_278314 2y ago
Work which exaggerates the blindness. The people were told to focus very deeply on a certain aspect of the scene. Maintaining that focus means explicitly blocking things not related to that focus. Also, there is social pressure at the end to have peformed well at the task; evaluating them on a task which is intentionally completely different than the one explicitly given is going to bias people away from reporting gorillas. And also, "notice anything unusual" is a pretty vague prompt. No-one in the video thought the gorillas were unusual, so if the PEOPLE IN THE SCENE thought gorillas were normal, why would I think they were strange? Look at any TV show, they are all full of things which are pretty crazy unusual in normal life, yet not unusual in terms of the plot. Why would you think the gorillas were unusual?
- dewarrn1 2y ago
  I understand what you mean. I believe that the authors would contend that what you're describing is a typical attentional state for an awake/aware human: focused mostly on one thing, and with surprisingly little awareness of most other things (until/unless they are in turn attended). Furthermore, even what we attend to isn't always represented with all that much detail. Simons has a whole series of cool demonstration experiments where they show that they can swap out someone you're speaking with (an unfamiliar conversational partner like a store clerk or someone asking for directions), and you may not even notice [0]. It's rather eerie. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWSxSQsspiQ&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWSxSQsspiQ&t=5s
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Does that work on autistic people? Having no filters or fewer filters, should allow them to be more efficient "on guard duty" looking for unexpected things.

bamboozled 2y ago

Are you saying if I turn around, I’ll be surprised at what I find ? I don’t feel like this is accurate at all.

matheusd 2y ago
If a generic human glances at an unfamiliar screen/wall/room, can they accurately, pixel-perfectly reconstruct every single element of it? Can they do it for every single screen they have seen in their entire lives?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  I never said pixel perfect, but I would be surprised if whole objects , like flaming lanterns suddenly appeared. What this demo demonstrates to me is how incredible willing we are to accept what seems familiar to us as accurate. I bet if you look closely and objectively you will see even more anomalies. But at first watch, I didn’t see most errors because I think accepting something is more efficient for the brain.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    You'd likely be surprised by a flaming lantern unless you were in Flaming Lanterns 'R Us, but if you were watching a video of a card trick and the two participants changed clothes while the camera wasn't focused on them, you may well miss that and the other five changes that came with that.
dewarrn1 2y ago
Not exactly, but our representation of what's behind us is a lot more sparse than we would assume. That is, I might not be surprised by what I see when I turn around, but it could have changed pretty radically since I last looked, and I might not notice. In fact, an observer might be quite surprised that I missed the change. Objectively, Simons and Chabris (and many others) have a lot of data to support these ideas. Subjectively, I can say that these types of tasks (inattentional blindness, change blindness, etc.) are humbling.
- jerf 2y ago
  Well, it's a bit of a spoiler to encounter this video in this context, but this is a very good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFMuGBP15U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFMuGBP15U Even having a clue why I'm linking this, I virtually guarantee you won't catch everything. And even if you do catch everything... the real thing to notice is that you had to look. Your brain does not flag these things naturally. Dreams are notorious for this sort of thing, but even in the waking world your model of the world is much less rich than you think. Magic tricks like to hide in this space, for instance.
  - dewarrn1 2y ago
    Yup, great example! Simons's lab has done some things along exactly these lines [0], too. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoMjORwA-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBoMjORwA-4
ajuc 2y ago
The opposite - if you turn around and there's something that wasn't there the last time - you'll likely not notice if it's not out of place. You'll just assume it was there and you weren't paying attention. We don't memorize things that the environment remembers for us if they aren't relevant for other reasons.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  We also don't just work on images. We work on a lot of sensory data. So i think images of the environment are just one part of it.

lawlessone 2y ago

I reminds me of dreaming. When you do something and turn back to check it has turned into something completely different. edit: someone should train it on MyHouse.wad

robotresearcher 2y ago

Not noticing to a gorilla that ‘shouldn’t’ be there is not the same thing as object permanence. Even quite young babies are surprised by objects that go missing.

dewarrn1 2y ago
That's absolutely true. It's also well-established by Simons et al. and others that healthy normal adults maintain only a very sparse visual representation of their surroundings, anchored but not perfectly predicted by attention, and this drives the unattended gorilla phenomenon (along with many others). I don't work in this domain, but I would suggest that object permanence probably starts with attending and perceiving an object, whereas the inattentional or change blindness phenomena mostly (but not exclusively) occur when an object is not attended (or only briefly attended) or attention is divided by some competing task.

throwway_278314 2y ago

Work which exaggerates the blindness. The people were told to focus very deeply on a certain aspect of the scene. Maintaining that focus means explicitly blocking things not related to that focus. Also, there is social pressure at the end to have peformed well at the task; evaluating them on a task which is intentionally completely different than the one explicitly given is going to bias people away from reporting gorillas. And also, "notice anything unusual" is a pretty vague prompt. No-one in the video thought the gorillas were unusual, so if the PEOPLE IN THE SCENE thought gorillas were normal, why would I think they were strange? Look at any TV show, they are all full of things which are pretty crazy unusual in normal life, yet not unusual in terms of the plot. Why would you think the gorillas were unusual?

dewarrn1 2y ago
I understand what you mean. I believe that the authors would contend that what you're describing is a typical attentional state for an awake/aware human: focused mostly on one thing, and with surprisingly little awareness of most other things (until/unless they are in turn attended). Furthermore, even what we attend to isn't always represented with all that much detail. Simons has a whole series of cool demonstration experiments where they show that they can swap out someone you're speaking with (an unfamiliar conversational partner like a store clerk or someone asking for directions), and you may not even notice [0]. It's rather eerie. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWSxSQsspiQ&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWSxSQsspiQ&t=5s
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Does that work on autistic people? Having no filters or fewer filters, should allow them to be more efficient "on guard duty" looking for unexpected things.