Paper Critique Assignment 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Paper Critique First...

Description

Selena Liu Professor Shams PSYCH 120B June 30, 2021 Paper Critique Assignment 1 1. In experiment 1, the independent variable was the location in which the selected Gaber patch rotates - which was the point of flexion where the array’s path turned in the experimental level and the horizontal leg where the array stayed straight in the control level. The dependent variable is whether or not the subjects in the experiment could detect the Gaber patch rotation - which was worse in the experimental level than in the control level. In experiment 2, the independent variable was the gradual 90 degree arc in the experimental level in comparison to the abrupt 90 degree arc in the control level. The dependent variable was how much better or worse the subjects were at identifying the rotation of the selected Gaber patch, and the experimenters found that there was no difference in the correctness of identification between the experimental and control levels. In experiment 3, the independent variable was whether or not saccade trials were excluded, in the experimental level, or included, in the control level. The dependent variable was whether or not subjects exhibited change blindness at equal levels whether or not saccade trials were excluded or included, which they did display at equal levels. 2. Yes, there were methodological flaws in the experimental design, such as how the subjects had different motivations coming into experiment 3. While experiment 1 and 2 had only students participating for course credit, experiment 3 had 4 out of 11 students being graduate volunteers with former knowledge of the experiment’s impact. The difference in the types of

subjects participating in the third experiment could have affected results, because it is explicitly stated that the 4 graduate students were more wary of saccades occurring at the point of flexion, implying that they could potentially locate angle changes more accurately.

3. To control for possibly confounding variables, the experimenters made sure to position all subjects in exactly the same manner and distance from the testing toolbox. For example, the experimenters made sure that subjects sat away from the toolbox at around 56-60 cm for experiments 1 and 2, and 60 cm for experiment 3. This is important because subjects will notice any angle changes at the same distance, and vision problems or any other differences in visual experience will be eliminated, thus making the results more equal as well.

4. “Change blindness” refers to the psychophysical phenomenon in which a sudden large change can mask a viewer’s perception of a smaller change that occurs at the same time. For example, in the experiment, a sudden change in direction at the point of flexion masks the subject from perceiving the combined angle change of the selected Gaber patch. This experiment was inspired by magic because when magicians perform card tricks, they often use a sudden large directional change, diverting their audience’s attention momentarily, to mask a small card change. In the end, the change blindness makes the trick possible and leaves the audience surprised.

5. The authors found that a change in direction at the point of flexion did make subjects less likely to notice angle changes of the selected Gaber patch, whether or not the point of flexion was clockwise, counterclockwise, or whether it was a smooth or rigid curve. The authors also

ruled out the possibility that a saccade was the reason behind whether or not the subjects detected the change or not through the excluding of saccade trials in Experiment 3. These findings imply that change blindness is a valid phenomenon in psychophysics that uses a big distraction, like a direction change, to mask a smaller change for viewers. These findings also help us understand that change blindness is not caused by saccades and is its own unique perceptual process that people like magicians can use to divert attention in magic tricks....