Work on particular projects includes:
1. Change blindness. This phenomenon is a striking inability of observers to notice
large changes in visual stimuli whenever the change is made the same time as a
transient motion elsewhere. Originally encountered by researchers who
found that large changes could go unnoticed if made during eye movements and
film cuts, I helped to discover that the cause was much more general--namely
that attention is needed to see change. This was done by the development
of a "flicker paradigm", in which an original and changed image
continually alternated, with a brief blank interval between them. Under
these conditions subjects have a very difficult time seeing the change between
the two pictures, even when the changes are large, and the subjects are expecting
them. Evidently, attention is required to see change; without it, people will look at but
not see the
This phenomenon challenges the idea that vision involves building up an internal picture in our heads; instead, much more dynamic representations must be used. Also, given that attention is needed to see change, change blindness can be used as a new source of information about the nature of visual attention. (Take a look at some examples of this effect!)
2. Intelligent rapid processing. Until recently, it was believed that the rapid "preattentive" processing at early levels of vision was obtained by reducing the complexity of the operations, i.e., only simple tasks--such as determining orientation or color--could be done quickly. However, work I did (with Jim Enns and Patrick Cavanagh) shows that the preattentive system is capable of much more. For example, it can recover properties of the scene, such as three-dimensional orientation and lighting direction. It can also carry out grouping, and can rapidly identify shadows and highlights. In my PhD thesis, I developed a computational account of how such "intelligent" processing could obtain speed by reducing reliability slightly. In other words, much of preattentive processing has a quick and dirty nature; even though the processes will not succeed under all conditions, they will do so often enough.
3. Information Visualization. This work investigates how information
visualizations work. Among other
things, I applied classical measurement techniques used in visual psychophysics
to displays used for information visualization (e.g. scatterplots). Results
(presented at both VSS 2010 and EUROVIS 2010) show a highly linear/logarithmic
behaviour (basically, the Weber and Fechner laws). At a practical level, this allows various designs to be
evaluated quickly and rigorously.
At a theoretical level, it shows that the early visual system is even
more intelligent than people think.
Work is also underway on testing new kinds of scatterplot designs that
work as well as existing ones, but use far less space.
These results open up the prospect of considering visualizations as interesting stimuli for vision scientists. Similarly, it opens up the prospect of researchers in information visualization adopting a new (and more rigorous) set of tools. If these developments proceed, it will create a seamless link between workers in these two fields, which have previously remained somewhat separate.
4. The Science of Magic. During the past few years I (along with Gustav Kuhn and my former students Alym Amlani and Jay Olson) have investigated how magic effects work. This includes the way magicians direct the attention of observers, and the way that magicians can give observers the illusion of free will. This approach has received considerable interest in the press, including a segment on CBC (Project X). A paper on this topic appeared in Trends in Cognitive Sciences in 2008, and another in Perception in 2012.
5. Mindsight. Recently, I discovered that observers could sense a change, but not see it (i.e., have a visual experience of it) for several seconds. Essentially, observers can reliably feel "in their gut" that something is happening, even though they have no visual experience of it. (It should be pointed out that this effect is still mediated visually--the signal must still come in through the eyes.) In a way, this effect is similar to blindsight, except that (a) the experience is still a conscious one of "something happening", and (b) it is obtained from normal observers rather than patients with lesions. It may be that this effect corresponds to what is commonly believed to be the "sixth sense".