Observations and results
Did the reaction time increase as more distracters were added? Did it take longer for volunteers to answer when the target was absent compared with when it was present?
You should have seen that, in general, the reaction time needed to do the visual search increased as more distracters were added. (There may have been some exceptions, such as a person taking only slightly longer to do a visual search with three distracters present in comparison with four, but it should have clearly taken a good deal more time to find the target when there were four distracters compared with when there was just one.) When more distracters are present, it makes finding the target more difficult. (Think of the example with the red letter T target and letter L distracters that became more distracting when they changed from all blue to half red.) This makes people take more time in their visual search, even if the target is not there. In fact, you should have seen that people actually take more time when the target is absent compared with when it is present, as they may spend more time checking and rechecking to make sure that the target is really not there.
More to explore
Cognitive Science Software: Visual Search, from Tom Busey at Indiana University Bloomington
Research Explains How the Brain Finds Waldo, from ScienceDaily
The Truth Behind Where's Waldo?, from ScienceDaily
The Brains Behind Where's Waldo?, from Science Buddies
This activity brought to you in partnership with Science Buddies
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentLet us assume you are concentrating, looking for something specific like a red T, and some random researcher parades a gorilla through the room.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing as you are concentrating, you don't notice the gorilla.
Do you get accolades for not losing concentration?
Or, do you lose points for not noticing the gorilla?
yep - from my zen meditation I find out walking that I am always noticing small beautiful details - a fallen leaf, a cloud, a play of sunlight, a child's tentative smile, an interesting interaction, a special moment - yet when I mention it to a person I'm with - they'll be like 'huh!?' - as their mind was elsewhere - the rat-race of thoughts that fills the mind prevents clear view of the world around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe typical mind is so busy with its own thoughts that distraction is not so much from something external they're concentrating on, but from their own befuddled cage of imagination.
With the clear mind of zen, everything is seen, everything is taken in at a glance, there is no distraction.
I know the average person who has not experienced this will reject this as rubbish - I expect that - so I just put this out there for anyone who might appreciate it.
It would seem most everything I remember melts into the background ha. Perhaps that's a disenchantment with my surroundings or environment is not exciting enough!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that the differences are centered on the word "focus" . In order to address any process, or observation you must focus on the item of subject, and, if (which I find to be prevalent) a person can't properly focus, the process is interrupted by the unimportant (unimportant to the study) features that creep into his awareness. Ability to Focus is all-important to completion of anything you attempt, talking on a phone, writing a check, reading for content, driving safely, listening to your wife, or absorbing the subject in a conversation, or class. I submit that the INABILITY TO FOCUS is the strongest detriment to whatever you attempt, and to the speed with which you can accomplish a task. The active mind's ability to plan ahead, whenever a deterent presents itself, and to solve a delay, is very important to the task completion, as well, enhanced by your ability to FOCUS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this