Individual and team susceptibility to change blindness

Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 81, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 935-943

  Tollner Burngasser, Alison ^a   Riley, Michael A ^b   Nelson, W Todd ^c  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^c AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Change detection; Team performance; Visual search; Workload

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; REACTION TIME; SOLDIER; VISUAL DISORDER; WORKLOAD;

ADULT; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; MALE; MILITARY PERSONNEL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; REACTION TIME; VISION DISORDERS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 79951602354     PISSN: 00956562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.2809.2010     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Brennan SE, Chen X, Dickinson CA, Neider MB, Zelinsky GJ . Coordinating cognition: the costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search . Cognition 2008; 106: 1465-77. (Pubitemid 351172230)
2. Bowers CA, Braun CC, Morgan BB. Team workload: its meaning and measurement. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C , eds. Team performance assessment and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997: 85-108.
3. Casali JG, Wierwille WW. A comparison of rating scale, secondary-task, physiological, and primary-task workload estimation techniques in a simulated flight task emphasizing communication load. Hum Factors 1983; 25: 623-41. (Pubitemid 14173019)
4. Creed WED, Miles RE. Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR, eds. Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996: 16-39.
5. DiVita J, Obermeyer R, Nugent TE, Linville JM. Verification of the change blindness phenomena while managing critical events on a combat information display. Hum Factors 2004; 46: 205-18. (Pubitemid 44490378)
6. th Annual Meeting; 1984; San Antonio, TX. Santa Monica, CA: HFES; 1984.
7. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empiricaland theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, eds. Human mental workload. New York: North-Holl and: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1988: 139-83.
8. th Annual Meeting; 2003 October 13-17; Denver, Colorado. Santa Monica, CA: HFES; 2003.
9. Knoblich G, Jordan JS. Action coordination in groups and individuals: learning anticipatory control. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2003; 29: 1006-16. (Pubitemid 37268943)
10. Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. J Pers Soc Psychol 2006; 90: 644-51. (Pubitemid 43825054)
11. MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serafty D. Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM, eds. Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004: 61-82.
12. Malcolmson KA, Reynolds MG, Smilek D. Collaboration during visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 2007; 14: 704-9.
13. Marks MA, Zaccaro SJ, Mathieu JE. Performance implications of leader briefings and team interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85: 971-86.
14. Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85: 273-83.
15. Mitroff SR, Simons DJ, Levin DT. Nothing compares 2 views: change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information. Percept Psychophys 2004; 66: 1268-81. (Pubitemid 40778218)
16. Rensink RA. Sensing, seeing, scrutinizing. Vision Res 2000; 40: 1469-87.
17. Rensink RA. Visual search for change: a probe into the nature of attentional processing. Vis Cogn 2000; 7: 345-76. (Pubitemid 30353637)
18. Rensink RA, O'Regan JK, Clark JJ. To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol Sci 1997; 8: 368-73. (Pubitemid 127455296)
19. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W. How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2005; 31: 1234-46. (Pubitemid 43246377)
20. Simons DJ, Levin DT. Change blindness. Trends Cogn Sci 1997; 1: 261-7. (Pubitemid 127445455)
21. Simons TL, Peterson RS. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85: 102-11.
22. Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich DM. Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Hum Factors 1999; 41: 61-71. (Pubitemid 29228327)
23. Treisman AM, Gelade G. A feature integration theory of attention. Cognit Psychol 1980; 12: 97-136.
24. Welsh TN, Elliott D, Anson JG, Dhillon V, Weeks D, et al. Does Joe influence Fred's action? Inhibition of return across different nervous systems. Neurosci