Running head: YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 1

You See It, Now You Don’t

D’Shealyn Bullock

Norwich University
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 2

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of individuals being able to detect a change

in familiar room settings with some everyday room items versus room settings that are not

reflected by their particular lifestyle. A PowerPoint showing "before" and "after" photos of a

Cadets bedroom and a Civilian bedroom, was shown with objects disappearing for participants to

note the changes. A total of 41 students from Norwich University from the Corps of Cadets and

Civilian lifestyle participated. A significant difference in change detection with objects in

familiar scenes being easily detectable by individuals who live in that particular lifestyle was

predicted. Results, however, showed how the type of object that disappeared was a main effect

along with the lifestyle having a significance in complex scenes.

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 3

Table of Contents

Review of Relevant Literature 4

Statement of Purpose 12

Hypotheses 14

Method 15

Participants 15

Apparatus 15

Materials 15

Design 16

Dependent Measures 16

Procedure 17

Results 18

Discussion 23

References 27

Appendices

Appendix A 28

Appendix B 31

Appendix C 32
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 4

Review of Relevant Literature

“Memory is the residue of thought” is a quote said by cognitive psychologist Dan

Willingham. Memory cannot just be simply defined. In order to establish memory, there is a

process that takes place. The process of memory is broken into three stages. The first stage in the

process of having memory is known as acquisition. Acquisition is the process of gaining

information and placing it into memory (Reisberg, 2016). In other words, the information needs

to be acquired before it can turn into memory. The information acquired is also known as

referring to the concept of learning or encoding. After acquiring information, the information

needs to be kept until it is needed which puts the information into the storage stage. The storage

phase acts as a placement until the information is needed for the future. When the information is

remembered, the active use of it is memory which develops through the last stage of retrieval.

Memory is the persistence or maintenance of information gained through experience across time.

The establishment of many different types of memory existing came from a study in 1885 by

psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus. Ebbinghaus created an experiment in which he made up

“non-sense” words and tried to recall them over a period of time. He noticed that he started

forgetting them as more time went by. As a result, it is known that different types of memory

exist. However, for this research only a few types of memory will play a role when referencing

attention and object location.

Bottom-up and top-down processing are used with schemas to understand new

information. Bottom-up and top-down processing are two concepts used when perceiving and

understanding the world (Gilovich et al., 2013). Bottom-up processing is when an individual is

able to form conclusions based on the stimuli encountered through experience from the outside

world. Bottom-up processing can also be referred to as being data-driven. Top-down processing
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 5

is the opposite in which an individual filter and interprets new information in light of pre-

existing knowledge and expectations, or theory driven (Gilovich et al., 2013). These two

concepts were used in a study by Schankin et al. (2017) where the allocation of attention in

change detection and change blindness was evaluated. Attention is the psychological construct

that involves selective awareness of part of the sensory environment or selective responsiveness

to a class of stimuli (Reisberg, 2016). Change-blindness is a concept used in studies when testing

the accuracy of what an individual can and cannot see when the stimuli is in plain view. Change-

blindness is when a visual stimulus is presented with large-scale changes and the individual

cannot or takes a long time to detect the change. Change-blindness is also a process in which an

individual is free to look wherever on the visual stimuli to see if he or she can notice the

difference. One set of the independent variables in the study was the distraction of attention by

varying the number of mudsplashes shown with a low distraction group and a high distraction

group. The dependent variable was the detection of change (rate of change-blindness). The

authors hypothesized that depending on whether the bottom-up or top-down process dominates,

either the amplitude of N2pc component should be larger or the latency should be shorter when

change locations are highlighted (Schankin et al., 2017). The start of each trial began with a

fixation point in the center of the screen for 1,000ms. The first matrix appeared for 400ms then

the second at 100ms, simultaneously with the mudsplashes. After the mudsplashes disappeared,

then the matric remained on the screen for another 400ms. Some trials had identical matrices

with no change which others had one matrix change to six possible locations. 14% of all trials

included the colored dot in the center of the screen to change colors. Participants were told to

indicate whether they saw a change or not by pressing the green or red key. Guessing was not

allowed and participants were instructed to only report a change if they really saw one. The low
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 6

distraction group were presented with four mudsplashes when the high-distraction group were

presented with eight mudsplashes. The results showed the low-distracting condition detected

51% of the changes and responded correctly to 96.2% of the no changes. The high-distraction

condition detected 35.4% of the changes and rejected 95.5% correctly of the no changes. The

increasing number of mudsplashes resulted in participants being less sensitive for changes. As a

final conclusion, the probability to detect a change depends on the relationship between the

changing object and other visual disturbances as well as the relationship between the changing

object and other non-changing objects. With this being the final conclusion, it is determined that

bottom-up processing and the attention from it has an influence on detecting change in objects.

A false memory is a memory that is reported that misrepresents how an event actually

unfolded. In some instances, a false memory can be incorrect as a whole where the event that has

been recalled never happened. Aside from false memories occurring in connection with schemas,

memory can also have an effect on what an individual may see. A study by Lew and Howe

(2016) was tested to determine the performance of participants and creation of false memories as

it applies to object-location bindings. The authors hypothesized that performance would be

reliably lower with more false memories for objects shifter from unexpected to expected

locations compared with objects shifted from unexpected to different, but still unexpected,

locations. The researchers manipulated two groups of one being “shifted-to-expected condition”

and the other “shift-to-unexpected condition”. The conditions differed by the shift-to-expected

condition showing pictures that had the same objects in the right location for the before and after

images. The shift-to-unexpected condition were shown pictures with objects in other locations

that are not the “norm”. The proportion of correct responses to the question “was this object in

this place before” for when the objects were shifted was recorded. Three tasks were given to the
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 7

participants. The task had a study phase, distractor task, and ended with a recognition memory

test. The participants were told that they were going to be shown four scenic photographs for

twelve seconds each then be tested on their memory for the scene. After being distracted for

thirty seconds one out of the four scenes were presented and the participants were given the test.

The test asked the question, “was this object in this place before.” Participants had the option to

hit the Y key for “yes” and the N key for “no” when an object appeared on the screen. Each

scene was shown once and each object was only highlighted once. The results examined main

effects of location in which there was a higher false memory for schema-relevant objects in

expected locations. The results explain that false memories are more common when individuals

are thinking about familiar objects that are present in expected locations. With this being the

case, it can be assumed that the mind creates this false event because of what is expected to be

there or “come next” in the given situation. False memories occurred with the “shift-to-

unexpected condition” as well. An interaction between location and objects exist as well as false

memories with certain locations.

Multiple studies incorporate the use of visual working memory as it correlates with the

location of objects and change detection. Visual working memory is the storage system in which

information is held while that information is being worked on (Reisberg, 2016). Working

memory can also be referred as short-term memory. The question that arises is, does visual

working memory have an effect change-detection? A study in 2015 tested iconic memory

(working memory) for natural scenes by using a modified change-detection procedure (Clarke

and Mack). The researchers manipulated the scene conditions by having a change with cue,

change with no cue, no change with a cue and no change with no cue. The dependent variables

were change detection and change identification. The authors hypothesized, “If an iconic
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 8

memory exists of the scenes, subjects should detect and identify significantly more changes with

the cue than without the cue and this cue advantage should diminish as the time between the

offset of the pre-change scene and the onset of the cue increases.” The participants sat looking at

a dark gray screen with a red fixation cross. They were told that the changes could appear

anywhere within the scenes and there would be a change on 50% of the trials. A cue did not

mean there was a change on that trial. After the fixation cross, a natural scene appeared for

500ms. The 1500ms trial, included a cue appearing for 100ms. The same scene followed the cue

and remained on the screen for 500ms. After, participants were presented with a blank screen

with a question “Did you see a change?”. Participants had a second to answer yes or no. If they

answered yes then they were presented with two more questions “What was in the first scene?”

and “What did it change to in the second scene?” When the information was put into the

response box, they pressed return and continued to the next trial. Each participant completed 30

trials which were all random. The proportion of correct responses in the change detection task

and original identification task at each cue was recorded. The results showed that subjects

correctly guessed and identified changes on catch trials with a cue (the no change with a cue

condition) on 2% of 1440 trials (totaling 29 trials), while they never correctly guessed and

identified changes on catch trials with no cue (the no change with no cue condition). In reference

to the aim of the study, the evidence presented here strongly suggests that more information

about a complex natural scene is fleetingly represented in iconic memory than is contained in

short term memory, and this information is sufficient to allow for identification of objects

contained within that scene (Clarke and Mack, 2015).

Another study that supports the relationship between object files and visual working

memory is “Binding objects to locations: The relationship between object files and visual
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 9

working memory” by Hollingworth and Rasmussen (2010). The experimenters hypothesized that

if the object representations in visual working memory are object files, then performance in the

updated condition should have a higher faster reaction time and/or higher accuracy than

performance in the no correspondence condition. The independent variable has three conditions.

In the updated condition, the colors in the test array appeared in the locations that were

consistent with the motion of objects. In the original condition, the test colors appeared in the

same locations in which they appeared in the initial array with no object motion. In the no

correspondence condition, the test colors appeared in locations that did not correspond either to

the updated positions or to the original positions. The dependent variable was the relocation of

objects that moved. Participants were told that they would view a series of object arrays made up

of boxes. On each trial, a set of colors would appear briefly in boxes, the boxes would move, and

a second set of colors would appear, with all colors old or one color new. They were instructed

that the position of the colors was irrelevant. One button was pressed if the colors were the all

the same and if one color was new a different button was pressed. Before the trials, a screen with

four random digits appeared and participants had to repeat the four digits out loud. The

participants had to repeat the digits throughout the trials. 12 or 16 trials were given, two in each

condition. The trial order was determined randomly. Performance was reliably more accurate, in

the updated condition than in the no correspondence condition. In result, benefits were observed

both on accuracy and reaction time for the updated and original conditions over the no

correspondence condition. When an object moved, the remembered color of the object came to

be associated with the new location of the object. Thus, the object-file framework can be

understood as accounting for key properties of visual working memory (Hollingworth and

Rasmussen, 2010).
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 10

The studies explained thus far includes memory, object location, and attention. The

studies have different methodologies to further explain the similarities each have. Attention plays

a huge role in what is remembered. A study by researchers Sala and Courtney (2009) supports

the notion that working memory influences the relationship between an object and its location

with the interaction with attention. The independent variables in this study are the change in the

identity of the object pattern images or the location of the object. The dependent variable was the

reaction time for making the discrimination judgement of the target being a “2” or “5” or the

location of the “2” or “5” targets. The hypothesis that the authors stated that to the extent that the

working memory representation interacts with attention, active maintenance in working memory

of the relationship between an object and its location depends on whether this relationship is task

relevant. Each participant was placed in front of a screen. The trial began with a one second

instruction, indicating whether the participant needed to remember the identity “what” or

location “where”. After the instructions, three sample images were shown simultaneously for one

second. A delay of one, two, or three seconds followed, after which the cue images for the target

discrimination task were presented. A semitransparent block figure eight was superimposed on

each cue image. These cue images with the block eights superimposed did not provide any

further information on where the target would appear. Then, two bars from each of the figure

eights were removed, transforming one into a “2” or “5” (target), and the other into an “E” or “3”

(distractor). Subjects responded with the press of one of two buttons as quickly and accurately as

possible regarding whether the target was a “2” or a “5”. The trial concluded with the

presentation of the test image for which subjects made a match/ nonmatch judgment. The authors

concluded that the representation for working memory maintenance that interacts with attention

is task-dependent. In other words, working memory needs attention to function. Working

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 11

memory and attention is dependent on one another which means it can affect what is recalled.

Results reflected that participants were faster to process location targets when doing the WHERE

working memory task and faster to process pattern targets when doing the WHAT working task

(Sala and Courtney, 2009).

Long-term memory contains all of your knowledge and beliefs that is not thought about

at the moment (Reisberg, 2016). In 2008, a study by Becker and Rasmussen was created to

determine the functioning of attention to objects and locations by long-term memory. The

authors hypothesized that the large cuing effects do not reflect an intentional shift toward

memorizing the key locations/objects within a scene. The independent variable is the changing of

the scene with an additional object added to the second picture for the trials. The dependent

variable is the reaction time and accuracy of the change detection. Participants were told that

they were about to see a number of pairs of pictures and that two pictures in each pair were

identical except that the second one included an additional object. The task was to detect the new

objects as accurately and quickly as possible. Three practice trials were given before the actual

experiment to familiarize participants with the task and method of responding. After, twelve

experimental trials were given. Each trial displayed the word “ready”. The reaction time timer

began when the participant hit the space bar to begin the experiment. The sequence of images

was displayed for 383ms each. The image was then replaced by a gray screen for 283ms. The

cycle kept repeating until the participant detected the change. When the change was detected, the

participant pressed the space bar a second time. The response stopped the reaction time timer and

replaced the image with the gray screen again. After the gray screen, the original view of the

scene was shown. The participant then used a mouse to indicate the location of the change object

within the original scene. If the change was correctly localized then the trial ended and the next
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 12

trial started with the word “ready”. If the change was not successfully located, then the same trial

was repeated until the participant was successful with locating the change. At the end of the

trials, the participants were informed that they were done with the change-detection experiment

and were asked to participate in an unrelated activity that lasted for approximately 30 minutes.

After completing the unrelated activity, participants were asked to participate in a second block

of change-detection trials. The second block was the same as the first except that the block

included eighteen trials with six of them being new, unfamiliar scenes. Results showed that

participants detected a new change more quickly when it appeared within a familiar scene (a

scene that appeared in the first block of trials) than when it did within an unfamiliar scene

(Becker and Rasmussen, 2008). The results fully supported that long-term memory played an

important role in recall of detecting change.

The search for results about memory is never-ending. It is obvious that different types of

memory combine with attention and object location exist to detect a relationship between the

three. Further studies with college students’ lifestyle are an aspect that should be considered.

More studies should tell whether there is a difference in identifying change detection with object

location and memory with familiar scenes in a dorm setting for college students based on their

particular life experience. Another variable to potentially examine is whether there is a difference

in identifying change detection in an organized versus a clustered setting.

Statement of Purpose

The literature has examined how memory and attention work together to detect changes

in images displayed in familiar and unfamiliar “natural” scenes created by experimenters. The

proposed thesis will investigate the accuracy of memory expectation on change detection in
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 13

reference to complexity of familiar and unfamiliar scenes of corps (barracks) versus civilians

(dorms).
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 14

Hypotheses

1 Change detection with objects in familiar scenes can be detected by individuals who live

in that particular lifestyle.

a) Cadets would easily detect a change in a corps room rather than a civilian room

b) Civilians would easily detect a change in a civilian room rather than a corps room

c) Difficulty in change detection would occur for opposite expected rooms

2 Change detection in complex room setting would not be easily recognized regardless of

particular lifestyle.
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 15

Method

Participants

Forty-one men and women of traditional college age would be recruited from Norwich

University psychology courses for a convenience sample. Participants may receive extra credit

for their specific courses.

Apparatus

A PowerPoint with sets of “before” and “after” pictures (see Appendix A)

would be shown with the “after” pictures getting rid of an object or two. The “before” picture

would be shown for about 2 seconds and would switch to the “after” photo for about 2 seconds

also. The photos would be labeled by sets to show the Corp of Cadets bedroom and the Civilian

bedroom. The instructions would be on the PowerPoint screen for participants to follow.

Materials

Participants would be given questionnaires (see Appendix B) to answer to determine if

they saw a change or any differences in the “after” picture viewed on the PowerPoint. The

participants would be asked to list differences, if any. The level of accuracy for each set of

“before” and “after” pictures would be recorded.

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 16

Design

Independent Variables. There would be two independent variables, each of which would have

two levels as follows:

1. Type of lifestyle

1. Corp of Cadets

2. Civilian

2. Complexity of room

1. Corp of Cadets bedroom

2. Civilian bedroom

Dependent Variables. There would be one dependent variable which would be measured by the

experimenter.

1. Level of accuracy from change detection, measured by a questionnaire.

Type of Lifestyle

Corps Civilian

Corps 15 15
Complexity

Civilian 15 15
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 17

Procedure

The participants would be recruited from different psychology courses at Norwich

University. When participants entered the room, they were greeted with a warm welcome. Once

they sat, a laptop was placed in front of them, and informed consent was passed out. Each

participant had their own laptop in front of them. Once participants completed the informed

consent, a questionnaire sheet was distributed facedown to each participant. When the

participant was ready, I would tell them to read the instructions that would be displayed on the

screen. After, I would ask if everyone understood the instructions or had any questions. Once the

participant was ready, I pressed play on the PowerPoint that automatically displayed the photos

and the directions that told the participants when it was time to flip their questionnaire sheet

over. Once the PowerPoint finished, the participants were asked to write whether they were in

the Corps of Cadets or a Civilian student. Participants were told to circle the appropriate

lifestyle. Once the participant was done completing the questionnaire, I collected the sheets and

distributed the debriefing forms. I thanked each participant for their participation. Once the

participants were debriefed, they were directed to leave the experiment room.

Analysis

A multivariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test would be used to analyze the data

with two independent variables and two dependent variables.

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 18

Results

It was hypothesized that change detection with objects in familiar scenes can be detected

by individuals who live in that particular lifestyle. Meaning, cadets would easily identify a

change in a Corps of Cadets room rather than a civilian room and vice versa. This hypothesis

was supported; however, a new finding was seen by doing this experiment.

Desk Object and Phone

Each participant involved in this study was either representing the Civilian or Corps of

Cadet's lifestyle. For each set of photos shown to represent the complexity of the bedroom, a

multivariate test was run to confirm if any significance was present between the lifestyles or type

of room shown. From set A and B, the multivariate test displayed a difference in mean between

the objects that disappeared and not the lifestyles. Lifestyle was not significant, but the object

changed was very highly significant. Participants were shown photos in which an object would

disappear. The first photo displayed a desk object disappearing in a Civilian bedroom, and the

second photo posted a phone disappearing in a Corps of Cadet's bedroom. The significance of

change detected relied heavily on the type of object rather than the lifestyle of the room since the

mean of both lifestyles detecting the desk object was 21.95 while the average of both lifestyles

detecting the phone was 56.10. (F(1, 40) = 14.36, p<.001ƞp2=.27). This massive difference in

detection explains how the object affected what was shown. The phone is more familiar for

people to spot a change rather than a desk object regardless of lifestyle and the type of room

being shown.
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 19

Figure 1.

Plot of Civilian vs. Cadets Objects

60

50
Means

40

30

20
Civilian Corps
Lifestyle

Desk Object Phone

Table 1.
Mean Object Identification by Lifestyle
Lifestyle Mean Std. Deviation N
Desk Object Civilian 23.81 43.644 21
Corps 20.00 41.039 20
Total 21.95 41.906 41

Phone Civilian 52.38 51.177 21

Corps 60.00 50.262 20
Total 56.10 50.243 41

Lifestyle

The final hypothesis, "Change detection in complex room settings will not be easily

recognized regardless of a particular lifestyle," was not supported because of lifestyle having a

significance on the last two photos that were shown. The complicated room settings were not as

difficult for the Corps of Cadet's lifestyle since detection was easy for both rooms. The last two

photos in the experiment had two objects from each photo disappear; as a result, the significance
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 20

was in lifestyle. (F(1,40) =4.36,p<.04, ƞp2=.10). Cadets recognized civilian objects (water bottle

and desk object) had been removed in a Civilian room than did Civilian students. The average

for the changes in the Civilian bedroom resulted in Civilian's noticing the difference at 40.48

while Cadets noticed the change at 47.50. For the Cadet's bedroom, Civilian students noticed the

change at 33.33 while the Corps students noticed the change at 55.00. The means explains that

regardless of lifestyle, the Corp of Cadet participants were able to detect the change in either

room, which means that lifestyle was significant.

Figure 2.

Plots of Civilian vs. Cadets in Complex Settings

55

50

45
Means

40

35

30

25
Civilian Room (Soccer and Football) Corps Room (Water Bottle and Desk Object)
Lifestyle

Civilian Corps
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 21

Table 2.
Means for Complex Object Identification Accuracy by Lifestyle
Lifestyle Mean Std. Deviation N
Civilian Room (Soccer and Civilian 40.48 33.982 21
Football)
Corps 47.50 37.958 20
Total 43.90 35.699 41

Corp Room (Water Bottle Civilian 33.33 32.914 21

and Desk Object)
Corps 55.00 39.403 20
Total 43.90 37.408 41

Correct Number of Objects

At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to recall any objects from the

photos. This last statement was open-ended and not timed, so participants were able to take as

much time needed to write what objects he or she could remember. Out of thirty objects, an

average of 5.15 items were recalled from both lifestyles. Civilian students averaged to recall 3.81

objects correctly. Participants of the Corp of Cadet's lifestyle recalled 6.55 objects from the

photos. Cadets correctly identified many more objects that were present than did civilians. This

was true, regardless of the type of room. In this case, lifestyle was significant because the Corps

was able to recall not only items in the Corp of Cadet's rooms but also items in the Civilian

rooms. The hypothesis of change detection with objects in familiar scenes can be detected by

individuals who live in that particular lifestyle was supported to a certain extent only because the

Corps was able to identify items in both rooms (Civilian and Corps). (F(1,40)=16.3,

p<.0001,ƞp2=.030).
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 22

Figure 3.

Total Recalled Objects Civilian vs. Corps

7

6
Number of Objects Recalled

0
Civilian Corps Total
Lifestyle

Total Recollection of Objects

Table 3.
Means of Correct Number of Objects Recalled by Lifestyle
Lifestyle Mean Std. Deviation N

Civilian 3.81 1.721 21

Corps 6.55 2.564 20

Total 5.15 2.555 41

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 23

Discussion

There were two major findings of this study, both unexpected. The first was that lifestyle

did not matter in identifying objects in either Civilian or Corps of Cadet's bedroom, but that the

type of object did. The type of object that disappeared from the photo suggests that participants

may pay more attention if the object relates personally to them. In this case, the phone was easily

identified to have vanished in the Corp of Cadet's bedroom rather than the desk object that was

present in the Civilian bedroom. The phone was the object that disappeared from the Corp of

Cadets room while the desk object disappeared from the Civilian bedroom. As a result, both

Cadets and Civilian participants were able to detect the phone disappearing because this is a

highly salient object. A phone is a familiar object regardless of lifestyle because most people

have a cellular device that is continuously used every day. It is evident that participants will

notice a phone disappear in a photo rather than a desk object. However, the significance was

especially large in the sense that both lifestyles detected the phone at over two times the rate than

of noticing the desk object.

Another major finding from this study was that regardless of lifestyle, the Cadet

participants were able to accurately detect change in either room at a much higher rate than the

Civilians. Unlike the Civilian students, Cadet participants detected more change, no matter the

object or place that was shown. The Cadet participants were able to notice and remember more

change than the Civilian participants. Civilians did not support the hypothesis, change detection

with objects in familiar scenes can be detected by individuals who live in that particular, because

these participants were not able to identify change detection significantly.

It was also hypothesized in this experiment that change detection in complex room

settings would not be easily recognized regardless of a particular lifestyle. This was not
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 24

supported. Unexpectedly, lifestyle was a very highly significant factor in change detection in the

complicated rooms. The Cadets were keen at detecting change in complicated room settings.

Lifestyle is significant because Cadet students have to pay attention to detail. Corp of Cadet

participants do not have much freedom when it comes to designing their rooms and are subjected

to regular room inspections, complex change detection in this context was easy for them. Unlike

the Cadet's lifestyle, Civilian students do not have a routine schedule when having to pay close

attention to detail. Civilian students have the freedom to design their rooms in their liking.

Civilian students also have the benefit of rearranging and putting more dorm-style objects in

their bedroom than students who are in the Corp of Cadets. The specific lifestyles itself is the

reason why so much significance existed with the Corp of Cadets in identifying the change of

objects more than Civilians and also correctly recalling more objects than Civilian students.

The study by Lew and Howe (2016) created an experiment to determine the performance

of participants and the creation of false memories as it applies to object-location bindings. The

purpose of both studies was not similar, but the methodology has similarities. The two groups in

the Lew and Howe study included objects that were either "shifted-to-expected condition" or

"shift-to-unexpected condition." Compared to this study, the everyday objects from the Corp of

Cadet's lifestyles, such as the rook cover, dress shoes, and combat boots is what would be

considered to be expected objects in that type of bedroom. Everyday objects for the Civilian

lifestyle that were put into the Civilian bedroom were a minifridge, desk objects, and water

bottle. The ordinary objects in this study were similar to Lew and Howe because objects were

meant to be expected in the assigned bedroom even though all participants were shown the same

photos. The Lew and Howe (2016) study also asked participants the question, "was this object in

this place before" to calculate the correct responses. In this experiment, the problem was
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 25

comparable to ask the participants, "what object disappeared from the photo shown after two

seconds?" The results were different for these two studies simply because the purposes were not

the same. Lew and Howe (2016) explained that false memories are more common when

individuals are thinking about familiar objects that are present in expected locations. However,

the results for this study demonstrated that individuals are more accurate in identifying the

change with everyday objects that are present regardless of location.

In designing this experiment, the disappearance of objects came from a study in 2008 by

Becker and Rasmussen. The study by Becker and Rasmussen allowed participants to look at a

sequence of images for 383ms each. Instead of displaying a series of pictures for 383ms,

participants were able to look at an image for two seconds before an object disappeared in which

participants then had twenty seconds to write down which object was not in the photo anymore.

Another difference in this study and the study by Becker and Rasmussen is that participants only

had to identify the location of the change object within the original scene, not to name the object

itself. This experiment allotted participants to be able to correctly name the object regardless of

the location where the object disappeared. The images presented in Becker and Rasmussen

(2008) also kept repeating in different trials if the participant did not correctly identify the

location of the object. However, in this study, participants were not told whether they named the

correct object and moved on to the next set of photos after the break time was complete.

If this study was done again, I think that I would put the same object to disappear but

change where it is in each room. I used an easy object (phone) to disappear and an overall

uncommon object (desk object), which may have been seen as less likely to disappear for the

simple room setting, which explains why the phone was more identifiable when gone. In a

follow-up study, I would put, for instance, a water bottle to disappear from each room. However,
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 26

in one lifestyle room, I would but the water bottle on the desk, and in another place, I would put

the water bottle on the windowsill. Allowing a chart with the objects that are in each room may

have made it easier for participants to identify which object changed since there were many

objects in each room. A chart with pictures of the objects before the participants being able to see

the photos may have helped with participants knowing the change that existed. I would like to

know whether the class year affects change detection. Does more time in a particular lifestyle

have any significance on familiar objects disappearing? That would be a question I would further

investigate if this topic were extended.

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 27

References

Becker, M. W., & Rasmussen, I. P. (2008). Guidance of attention to objects and locations by

long-term memory of natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition,34(6), 1325-1338.

Clarke, J., & Mack, A. (2015). Iconic memory for natural scenes: Evidence using a modified

change-detection procedure. Visual Cognition,23(7), 917-938.

Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2013). Social Psychology (3rd ed.). New

York: W. w. Norton & Company.

Hollingworth, A., & Rasmussen, I. P. (2010). Binding objects to locations: The relationship

between object files and visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Human Perception and Performance,36(3), 543-564.

Lew, A. R., & Howe, M. L. (2016). Out of Place, Out of Mind: Schema-Driven False Memory

Effects for Object-Location Bindings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition,43(3), 404-421.

Reisberg, D. (2016). Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind (6th ed.). New York: W.W.

Norton & Company.

Sala, J. B., & Courtney, S. M. (2009). Flexible working memory representation of the

relationship between an object and its location as revealed by interactions with

attention. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics,71(7), 1525-1533.

Schankin, A., Bergmann, K., Schubert, A., & Hagemann, D. (2017). The Allocation of Attention

in Change Detection and Change Blindness. Journal of Psychophysiology,31(3), 94-106.

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 28

Appendices

Appendix A: Stimulus Materials

Before Objects in Civilian Bedroom Disappeared (Set A and Set C).

After Objects in Civilian Room Disappeared (Set A).

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 29

After Objects in Civilian Room Disappeared (Set C).

Before Objects in Cadets Room Disappeared (Set B and Set D).

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 30

After Objects in Cadets Room Disappeared (Set B).

After Objects in Cadets Room Disappeared (Set D).

YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 31

Appendix B: Dependent Measures

Lifestyle? Corps or Civilian.

You See It, Now You Don’t Questionnaire Sheet

1. What object disappeared from photo 1 to photo 2 (SET A)?

2. What object disappeared from photo 1 to photo 2 (SET B)?

3. What object(s) disappeared from photo 1 to photo 2 (SETC)?

4. What object(s) disappeared from photo 1 to photo 2 (SETD)?

5. Was a football in both bedrooms?

A. Yes B. No

6. What color was the trunk in the Civilian bedroom (SETA & SETC)?

A. black B. blue C. pink D. green

7. True or False? A trashcan was in the Civilian bedroom (SETA & SETC).

A. True B. False

8. What number of boots were in the Corp of Cadets bedroom (SETB & SETD)?

A. one B. two C. three D. no combat boots were present

9. True or False? A rook hat was present in the Corp of Cadets bedroom (SETB & SETD)?

A. True B. False

10. Name any objects that you recall seeing in any of the bedrooms.

Note: Questions 5 – 10 are not displayed on the questionnaire sheet but are displayed on
the PowerPoint.
YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON’T 32

Appendix C: Statistical Tables

Table 1.
Mean Object Identification by Lifestyle
Lifestyle Mean Std. Deviation N
Desk Object Civilian 23.81 43.644 21
Corps 20.00 41.039 20
Total 21.95 41.906 41

Phone Civilian 52.38 51.177 21

Corps 60.00 50.262 20
Total 56.10 50.243 41

Table 2.
Means for Complex Object Identification Accuracy by Lifestyle
Lifestyle Mean Std. Deviation N
Civilian Room (Soccer Civilian 40.48 33.982 21
and Football)
Corps 47.50 37.958 20
Total 43.90 35.699 41

Corp Room (Water Bottle Civilian 33.33 32.914 21

and Desk Object)
Corps 55.00 39.403 20
Total 43.90 37.408 41

Table 3.
Means of Correct Number of Objects Recalled by Lifestyle
Lifestyle Mean Std. Deviation N
Civilian 3.81 1.721 21

Corps 6.55 2.564 20

Total 5.15 2.555 41