33 Reasons For Not Seeing
Viewers often fail to see objects, such as pedestrians and other vehicles. Such failures-to-see have great importance in safety as well as in many other domains such marketing, medicine, and sports. Elsewhere, I have discussed seeing in general and why failure-to-see is so common. Here, I provide a broad overview of the specific reasons for failures-to-see. I present these in tables that are adapted from the book Roadway Human Factors: From Science To Application (Green, 2017), which discusses them in detail. However, such categorizations inevitably begin to fray at the edges. They are didactic and an attempt at cognitively simplifying the large number of visual factors affecting seeing.
The reasons can very broadly be divided into visibility and cognitive. The first table shows 5 visibility factors. External physical factors are partial or complete sightline obstructions. Physiological factors can be optical, neural, or motor. Psychophysical factors usually boil down to those affecting contrast detection. Lastly, these five entries can readily be decomposed further. There are more than 16 subfactors in contrast alone (Green, 2017).
In many cases, however, the cause of failure-to-see is cognitive - the viewer does not consciously see an object which is theoretically highly visible. The usual culprit is attention. The failure to see is especially likely in given circumstances. There is vast a literature on attention and cognition that provides many potential explanations for failure to see in a given set of circumstances. The table below boils this literature down to a single list of 28 cognitive failure-to-see "constructs" that are again grouped into rough categories purely for didactic purposes. Further, the chart constructs require further elaboration.
The cognitive construct list is long, but the phenomena overlap considerably because they are different manifestations of our fundamental cognitive architecture and its consequences: 1) conscious awareness is limited by capacity, 2) attention is selective, 3) attention is efficient, trying to use the easiest and simplest selection criterion, and 4) attention generally selects information that is most meaningful based on past experience and on expectation of the future. This overlap is why I call them "constructs" rather than variables. The criterion for inclusion in the list is only that the authors frequently use the "construct" to explain a cognitive failure-to- see. In many cases, the construct name specifies little more than an experimental paradigm, e.g. "change blindness".
Lastly, the constructs also represent different granularities of explanation. "Inattentional blindness" (failure-to-see central objects) and "tunnel vision" (failure to see peripheral objects) are really just descriptive terms for phenomena that are ultimately caused by more specific constructs (expectation, hypervigilance, mental workload, etc.). They can be useful as umbrella terms when merely describing the functional loss, but they are not very specific. The appropriate level of analysis depends on the discussion context1.Endnotes 1 The required level of analysis depends on circumstances. For example, amblyopia is an umbrella descriptive term for loss of vision in one eye with no retinal pathology. It is usually caused by childhood strabismus or hypermetropia. When discussing functional loss in some cases, it is the amblyopia - what will the viewer see - that is important and not the underlying cause. In other cases, the underlying cause is important - how to prevent the condition.
|| Home | Experience | Services | Contact Us | Seminars/CLE | Attorney's Guide | Resources ||
Copyright © 2013 Marc Green, Phd
Home Page: http://www.visualexpert.com