Metacognitive errors in change detection: Lab and life converge

Smilek, Eastwood, Reynolds, and Kingstone (2007) suggests that the studies reported in Beck, M. R., Levin, D. T. and Angelone, B. A. (2007) (Change blindness blindness: Beliefs about the roles of intention and scene complexity in change detection. Consciousness and Cognition) are not ecologically va...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Consciousness and cognition 2007-03, Vol.16 (1), p.58-62
Main Authors: Beck, Melissa R., Levin, Daniel T., Angelone, Bonnie L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Blindness
Errors
Laboratories
Metacognition
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Smilek, Eastwood, Reynolds, and Kingstone (2007) suggests that the studies reported in Beck, M. R., Levin, D. T. and Angelone, B. A. (2007) (Change blindness blindness: Beliefs about the roles of intention and scene complexity in change detection. Consciousness and Cognition) are not ecologically valid. Here, we argue that not only are change blindness and change blindness blindness studies in general ecologically valid, but that the studies we reported in Beck, Levin, and Angelone, 2007 are as well. Specifically, we suggest that many of the changes used in our study could reasonably be expected to occur in the real world. Furthermore, the conclusion from Beck et al. (2007) that knowledge about the role of intention and scene complexity in change detection is not readily accessible applies not only to the laboratory studies we conducted but also to real world situations.
ISSN:1053-8100
1090-2376
DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2006.05.003