What? Where? I didn't see!!

Paula Parungao

They say that the world can only be viewed through our senses. That’s why our senses are so important to us. They let us get a feel of the world that is otherwise unattainable if our senses didn’t exist. What would happen if we can neither see nor hear? Touch nor taste? Smell nor feel? We’d be lifeless. Stuck inside bodies that can never live.

So if our senses is our door to the world and is a means of living, it must be reasonable to imply that we are able to translate everything that we see. After all, it is our way of survival. Haven’t we evolved and continuously adapted for that sole reason? It must make sense then that we are capable of perceiving everything in our world.

Vision is most probably one of the senses we humans are most dependent on. We can judge and describe everything around us just by looking at them. We alter our behavior depending on the things we see. Not only that but the eye is complicated enough as is. It relies on photons and a cascade of molecules to translate light. The inside of the eye itself is made up of complex lenses and light benders that translate what we term as light. When our eyes can properlybend and translate light, we are said to have perfect vision.

But apparently, even with this complicated process, we are more blind than we think. While it is true that we are able to translate everything that we see, we can’t interpret nor perceive everything that, for one, our eyes see for us. This phenomenon is so curious and so unbelievable that it took six researchers to do the study.

Experiment 1

Stimuli (T and L) of different luminance were presented. Participants were then asked to count the stimuli silently. Another trial instructed the participants only to observe the stimuli of certain luminance. Unbeknownst to the participants, a cross of similar or different luminance passes through the screen. After the experiment, the participants were asked to answer a questionnaire asking if they saw anything unusual. It appears that participants more often than not see the unexpected cross when it was the same luminance as the stimuli. Conversely, participants fail to see the unexpected stimuli when it’s the same luminance as the ignored stimuli.

Experiment 2

The next experiment was similar to the first one, only that the background was different. Instead of gray, the researchers decided to use aquamarine. With the same method as the first, it appears that the results reverse. When the unexpected cross was the same luminance, the participants failed to notice while the unexpected cross with a different luminance was seen. According to the paper, an explanation for this was that participants developed a luminance threshold wherein they notice stimuli darker than the threshold while ignoring stimuli lighter than it. It may also be that the unexpected stimuli was more eye-catching. Future study is needed to make a sufficient conclusion.

Experiment 3

We’re back to a gray background but now, the unexpected stimuli is as noticeable as ever. Against a gray background with white and black stimuli, the unexpected cross is now colored red. Surprisingly, when compared to experiment 2, the red cross was actually less noticed.

According to the overall results, it appears that only half of the participants noticed the unexpected object. And about 28% didn’t even notice the blaring and blatant red cross. It seems that when we are involved in certain tasks, we fail to notice other things around us no matter how obvious they may seem to be. This may be why, when we are in a complicated situation, we are asked to take a step back and look at it from a third person’s point of view. In this sense, we are uninvolved and we get to see things clearer.

In terms of perception, no matter how efficient or how special our senses might be, it shows that we don’t perceive all that we see. Even when our eyes may be working at their peak, what matters is still how our brain interprets or perceives all the stimuli it receives. We are inattentively blind to the things around us when we think that they aren’t important. In this sense, Beau Lotto may be right: Context is everything. The context being what matters to us most. What do we want to see?

This study is an eye-opener. It makes one aware of how much we aren’t actually paying attention to. From the looks of it, this may be a physical limitation our brain has created so that our minds wouldn’t be too overridden. Our consciousness already has a lot on its mind (pun intended) not to mention all the information our unconsciousness continuously interprets. When all this stimuli is intentionally perceived, it may cause our brains to implode with too much information. It’s not to say that I’m discouraging people to be more aware of their surroundings. In fact, with this study, I think people should be more aware of this physical limitation so that they can actually make more use of all the information they perceive. Too much information may cause our brains to implode, which is why observation is a conscious effort. The more you exercise this effort, of observing and taking notice more of the things around you, the more you can actually effortlessly see the unexpected things. Therefore, when it becomes innate, you get to maximize all that you perceive and in turn, create a more accurate translation of the world.

To prove that we can all be victims of inattentive blindness, please take the time to watch this video.

References:

Chabris, C.F., Clifford, E., Jimenez, R., Most, S.B., Scholl, B.J., Simons, D.J. (2001). How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. American Psychological Society, 12(1).