Other option (modified to include visual obstruction - less fun though). Also kinda less intuitive because then you have to set up that oh when a person is looking at a globe and then their view is obstructed if you then asked them what is different about the scene they would forget that the pedestrians on the left were previously there.
It is a lot of words. And âobserverâ has a typo I believe
Gonna give a lot of folks whiplash with that verbose of an alteration, imo. 10-words-when-2-will-do vibes.
In this case, neither Kaplan nor UWorld mention the phenomenon so our best tack is likely to hew at least somewhat to the phrasing used in the transcript. Though itâs spoken language, and somewhat informal, and so may need some touching up
Also, in this case why not just use the example they use in the transcript? Short, simple, very straightforward and immediately relatable (sorry, mom)
Lmao, Iâm going to admit that while I donât necessarily l love the initial image I donât have any idea whatâs going on in the new one. I presume thereâs context here, but itâs not immediately evident which I think might be an issue for users
this is the one they use no? 6:10. also its pretty much verbatim the video minus the previous and current wording unfortunately we need to include something to make it clear that the actual ability to perceive the change is completely blocked and its specifically being unable to recognize whats different after since they mainly convey this through pics and examples. Agree itâs a lot of words tough to cut down and convey all that. Lmk what youâre thinking youâre normally better at that lol.
Edit: Ah I missed âexample in the transcriptâ yeah ur right that could work
If we keep it stupid simple:
âChange blindness is a perceptual phenomenon in which an observer fails to detect a change in a visual scene or state.â
my concern is that goes back to the main issue of being the exact same thing as inattentional blindness. That statement is true but the difference that we want to convey is that thereâs an original state/scene, their view is obstructed such that the actual change occurring is not visible, then they cant identify whats different. Whereas inattentional blindness, that object or change is/occurs essentially right in front of them and they dont see it cause they are focused on something else. Very subtle thats the issue that took me forever to figure out how to word and why itâs tough to make it short.
Maybe (just riffing, also my brain is tired): âChange blindness is a perceptual phenomenon in which an observer fails to notice a change in a visual scene or state, even when focusing on it directly.â
sorry to be annoying but I think that kind of loses the meaning as well because they cant be focused on a change directly because their view is obstructed during the change/the change takes place in some manor without it being visible to them (door scene( obstruction) mom got haircut (just occurred in some place away from them so cant focus on that scene)).
Well, I donât think itâs a conditional requirement that they be focused on the thing the entire time.
The example they give is of the momâs haircut. For sure you didnât sit there and watch her get her haircut. The whole idea is that a change occurred, not necessarily that you watched the change take place. There is some degree of temporal interruption allowed here, I believe
That drawing is already giving me nightmares
I agree with you. Im saying that wording though of âwhich an observer fails to notice a change in a visual scene or state, even when focusing on it directlyâ makes it sound like youâre focusing on the thing the whole time while the change takes place even though thats not whats occurring. It makes it sound like you see the change take place when it is required that you dont see the change for this concept.
I mean, how are you going to communicate that someone is paying attention, but that the attention is both interrupted but the issue is not due to the attention interruption?
âChange blindness is a perceptual phenomenon in which an observer fails to notice a change in a visual scene or state, even when paying attention.â
Thatâs about the dumbest possible solution, ultimately
thats kind of what im saying. I think the way I have it explained might be as close to as short as possible without dropping meaning.
I think the phrasing as you have it presumes the scenario where a change is obscured, and that one is interrupted from viewing said change. But, arguably, thatâs not definitionally the only way for change blindness to occur.
For example, the two side-by-side images in the original Extra field. Thatâs an example of change blindness that doesnât require some obscured alteration.
They do these kinds of panels with âcolor change blindnessâ too, that donât rely on unseen alterations:
Thus, I donât think that the âunseen changeâ is a definitional component of the concept as a whole. It just happens to be one of the ways itâs commonly exemplified.
I think this is more of a limitation of that kind of image compared to my two suggestions of including an intermediate step. Actually though, any change between two visual scenes in this format definitionally requires some process for the change to occur that is obscured in some manor to the observer. The change that occurred to this image quite literally was obstructed to you since you didnât see the intermediate step/the change occur.
Given we dont have any other resources:
Change blindness occurs when you donât notice major changes in the visual environment (real life, photo, screen, etc.) due to some kind of interruption. These interruptions can include something as simple as a blink or darting of the eyes (saccades). Objects or other things that hinder the visual field may also cause change blindness.
Are we going to explain that a blink is considered a change? I donât know that thatâs going to be intuitive, at all
Weâre also running a real risk of editorializing outside of the scope of primary resources as well
No not the change the obstruction. A change occurs while you blink I think is intuitive that the change occurred when it was not visible to you.
I definitely do not think thatâs going to be intuitive to someone on flashcard 879 of MCAT prep.
I mean, arguably isnât the definitional thing here that there is a change? Nothing about inattention blindness requires a change of any kind, for example. Itâs just a focus relative attention that obscures attentiveness to a non-central detail. But no change happens, necessarily, no?
That there is change is sort of the central detail to this concept. Not how that change is achieved, or presented.
Weâre also an hour in on a single suggestion at this point, lol. I donât know how much juice I can give. m_saido has probably put in 84 tag suggestions at this point
No a change can be involved in inattentional blindness. For example, in the KA video they ask you to focus on counting the number of red XS shown and you dont notice a smiley face being flashed on screen which is a change. Thats why this is so hard to differentiate without a longer sentence I spent a lot of time trying.
I dunno.
âWhen the change happens in a way that is not directly visibleâ seems, to my eyes (no pun intended) to contradict that you can have two panes directly side-by-side.
I donât think the phrasing works, and we havenât (as yet) found one that has
I kind of have the opposite view the change to the two panes must have occurred outside of your view. I cant even identify the difference between them lmao. But say the person under the tree disappeared. Itâs not like they were vaporized. There must have been some process of them leaving/hiding behind the tree that is not shown between the panes. This is the limitation of not including the obscuring step in which the change is obscured with something simple like the box over the globe and pedestrians or the table over the researcher swap.