English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Explicit mechanisms do not account for implicit localization and identification of change: A reply to Mitroff et al. (2002)

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons84258

Thornton,  IM
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Fernandez-Duque, D., & Thornton, I. (2003). Explicit mechanisms do not account for implicit localization and identification of change: A reply to Mitroff et al. (2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 846-858. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.5.846.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-DB21-2
Abstract
Several recent findings support the notion that changes in the environment can be implicitly represented by the visual system. S. R. Mitroff, D. J. Simons, and S. L. Franconeri (see record 2002-15293-003) challenged this view and proposed alternative interpretations based on explicit strategies. Across 4 experiments, the current study finds no empirical support for such alternative proposals. Experiment 1 shows that subjects do not rely on unchanged items when locating an unaware change. Experiments 2 and 3 show that unaware changes affect performance even when they occur at an unpredictable location. Experiment 4 shows that the unaware congruency effect does not depend simply on the pattern of the final display. The authors point to converging evidence from other methodologies and highlight several weaknesses in Mitroff et al's theoretical arguments. It is concluded here that implicit representation of change provides the most parsimonious explanation for both past and present findings.