ArticlePloS one2015
Inattentional Blindness and Individual Differences in Cognitive Abilities.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analysis on the relationship between subjective cognitive failures as measured by the cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and objective performance on executive function tasks.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Pooled it
- Low and variable correlation between reaction time costs and accuracy costs explained by accumulation models: Meta-analysis and simulations.Psychological bulletin · 2018Pooled it
- A survey of what legal populations believe and know about inattentional blindness and visual detection.PloS one · 2024Article
- Stimulus awareness is associated with secondary somatosensory cortex activation in an inattentional numbness paradigm.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- ETMT: A Tool for Eye-Tracking-Based Trail-Making Test to Detect Cognitive Impairment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effects of alcohol and task difficulty on visual tracking and inattentional blindness.Psychopharmacology · 2022Article
- Does hunger promote the detection of foods? The effect of value on inattentional blindness.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Which Seat Facilitates the Detection of Off-Seat Behaviours? An Inattentional Blindness Test on Location Effect in the Classroom.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The invisible breast cancer: Experience does not protect against inattentional blindness to clinically relevant findings in radiology.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Article
- Studying Spatial Visual Attention: The Attention-Window Task as a Measurement Tool for the Shape and Maximum Spread of the Attention Window.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Article
- Can Motion Graphic Animation About Snakes Improve Preschoolers' Detection on Snakes? A Study of Inattentional Blindness.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Now or never: noticing occurs early in sustained inattentional blindness.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Attention capture, processing speed, and inattentional blindness.Acta psychologica · 2018Article
- Sustained Inattentional Blindness Does Not Always Decrease With Age.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Article
- The Spawns of Creative Behavior in Team Sports: A Creativity Developmental Framework.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People sometimes fail to notice salient unexpected objects when their attention is otherwise occupied, a phenomenon known as inattentional blindness. To explore individual differences in inattentional blindness, we employed both static and dynamic tasks that either presented the unexpected object away from the focus of attention (spatial) or near the focus of attention (central). We hypothesized that noticing in central tasks might be driven by the availability of cognitive resources like working memory, and that noticing in spatial tasks might be driven by the limits on spatial attention like attention breadth. However, none of the cognitive measures predicted noticing in the dynamic central task or in either the static or dynamic spatial task. Only in the central static task did working memory capacity predict noticing, and that relationship was fairly weak. Furthermore, whether or not participants noticed an unexpected object in a static task was only weakly associated with their odds of noticing an unexpected object in a dynamic task. Taken together, our results are largely consistent with the notion that noticing unexpected objects is driven more by stochastic processes common to all people than by stable individual differences in cognitive abilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.