Running head: CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 1

The Effects of White Noise on Change Blindness

Meagan E. Malesic

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 2

Abstract

It has been widely accepted that the phenomenon coined as change blindness is largely

influenced by visual distractions to selective attention. However, it has not yet been determined

whether other distractions, such as those affecting the auditory system, can also affect the brains

ability to detect change. Therefore, university students were divided into two groups and

assigned to listen to white noise at either a volume of ~15dB[A] or ~75dB[A]. Concurrently, the

students each completed a change blindness test, in which they were shown three sets of images

and asked to identify the change between each set of images. Between the two pictures in each

set of images, a blank screen was briefly displayed to act as the visual distraction. Results

revealed that there was no significant effect of white noise on the ability of the participants to

detect change across any of the three trails. Although further research is still required to

determine if auditory distractions affect the allocation of attention, the current study suggests that

white noise does not significantly affect the latency to detect change.

Keywords: change blindness, attention, white noise, task performance, distraction

CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 3

The Effects of White Noise on Change Blindness

Psychologist William James first mentioned the human tendency to lack awareness

towards visual changes in 1890. Following this observation, additional researchers began to

notice and study the visual systems failure to detect even prominent changes in ones

environment when distracted by simultaneously occurring visual distractions a phenomenon

coined as change blindness (Schankin, Bergmann, Schubert, & Hagemann, 2016). Change

blindness refers to an individuals inability to notice alterations in their environment, especially

when the changes are relatively minor in contrast to the complexity to the overall picture.

Additionally, the increased awareness and research of change blindness led to an

improved understanding of attention, as well as the large role that selective attention plays in the

formation of change blindness. It is widely accepted by most researchers that in order for

changes in ones environment to be detected immediately and precisely, the individuals

attention must not be distracted by other visual stimuli (Schankin et al., 2006). Therefore, the

introduction of a visual distraction between two different scenes such as the inclusion of a

blank screen between images can easily divert attention and result in the phenomenon of

change blindness.

Rensink and ORegan (1997) researched the relationship between the lack of selective

attention and change blindness. The study tested the ability of the participants to identify the

slight modifications within sets of real-world pictures, without knowing where to direct their

attention within the image in order to identify the change. The study hypothesized that it would

take participants significantly longer to identify changes between the sets of pictures when their

attention was disrupted by another visual distraction. To test this hypothesis, ten adult

participants were recruited for the experiment. Each participant was shown 48 sets of pictures,
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 4

each which contained a change - either of color, size, or absence of an element between the two

images. Each participant was instructed to press a key when they identified the change between

a set of two pictures, and were asked to be able to describe the change verbally. However, in the

experimental group, the two images within every set were each presented for a duration of 240

ms, and were separated by a blank screen lasting for 80 ms. Prior to the start of the experiment,

the participants each completed six practice trials. The dependent variable was identified as the

number of times that the participants alternated between the two images within the sets of

pictures before noticing and identifying the change. As hypothesized, it took a significantly

longer time for the experimental group to identify the changes between the sets of images than

the control group. Although both groups were instructed to identify changes between the same

images, the experimental group had the added visual distraction of the blank screen, which

significantly affected their attention and ability to detect change. These findings suggest that

disrupted selective attention plays an essential role in the formation of change blindness.

In addition, Porubanova and Sikl (2010) specifically investigated which types of changes

within images were the most easily overlooked by the human eye due to selective attention, and

therefore were more susceptible to change blindness. The purpose of the study was to explore

the relationship between visual acuity and the allocation of attention. The study hypothesized

that relevant, significant changes to the background of an image were more likely to attract the

attention of the viewer as opposed to irrelevant and improbable changes to the image. Eight

adult participants were recruited for the study. Each participant was tested individually and was

shown 30 sets of photographs, with some various change between each set of images. Similarly

to the study by Rensink and ORegan (1997), each image in the set was presented for 240 ms and

was followed by a blank screen lasting for a duration of 80 ms. However, in the study by
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 5

Porubanova and Sikl (2010), some of the sets of images had changes that were significant and

probable within the context of the image, while some sets had changes that were improbable and

irrelevant to the picture itself. The participants were each asked to click the mouse head once

they identified the change between each set of pictures. The results revealed that relevant

changes to an image were significantly easier for the participants to detect that irrelevant

changes. Additionally, the study also supported the phenomenon that change blindness can

cause observers to overlook even large, noticeable changes. Overall, the results of the study

suggested that the tendency of an observers attention to focus the visual system only upon the

selective information within an image that it deems are important or relevant greatly enables the

formation of change blindness.

It is apparent that the above studies (Rensink & ORegan, 1997; Porubanova & Sikl,

2010) suggest not only that selective attention is a crucial factor within the development of

change blindness, but also that distractions to the visual system negatively influence an

observers ability to detect change. However, the visual disruption of the blank screen present in

both studies only tested the visual systems influence on selective attention and change

blindness, while disregarding disruptions from other senses. Therefore, in the present study we

tested the effects of white noise on an individuals ability to detect change. Twelve university

students were randomly assigned to either the control group or the white noise group. Each

group of participants individually completed three tested trials, in which they were asked to

notice and identify the change between sets of images. The images shown were separated by a

blank screen interval lasting 200 ms. The amount of time that it took the participants to complete

each trial was timed and measured. Because of the results of the study by Rensink and ORegan

(1997), which suggested that selective attention can be easily distracted by visual disruptions, it
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 6

was hypothesized that the control group would be able to identify changes between the sets of

images far quicker than the white noise group, whose auditory systems were influenced by

sound. In addition, it was hypothesized that the third trial run would be the participants quickest

time, as their attention would be familiarized with the task at hand.

Method

Participants

Twelve university students participated in the study. Participants were comprised of six

females and six males between the ages of 19 and 22. The participants were recruited through

involvement in an experimental psychology class as a requirement for the course. All

participants signed consent forms and the study was granted approval by the Institutional Review

Board.

Materials

The dependent variable in the study was measured using the Go Cognitive Change

Blindness online demo, which consisted of one unscored practice trial followed by three scored

trials. The participants were each asked to complete all four trials as quickly as possible.

Procedure

A 2 x 3, one between-, one within-factor design was used in the study. The independent

variables were noise condition (control and noise) and number of trial (1, 2, and 3). The amount

of noise was the between-factor independent variable, and the 12 participants were randomly

assigned to either the control or the noise group, with six in each group. The white noise was

delivered at ~15dB[A] for the control group and ~75dB[A] for the noise group. Each participant

completed every trial of the experiment, and the presentation order of the three different pictures

shown was counterbalanced using incomplete counterbalancing. Each picture was presented for
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 7

1 s between blank screen intervals lasting 200 ms. The dependent variable of the study was the

latency to detect change between the pictures shown, which was measured using the timed,

scored trials of the Change Blindness online demo.

Prior to the beginning of the practice trial, participants were instructed by the researcher

that they would be shown two similar pictures immediately after one another, and that they must

detect the one change between the two pictures. When they identified the change, the

participants were to click the mouse hand over the difference they detected. After obtaining the

consent forms and informing the participants of the instructions, the researcher instructed the

participants to complete the unscored practice trial. Upon completion, the researcher began the

scored experimental trials, and activated the white noise, at ~15- and ~75dB[A] for the control

and noise groups, respectfully. The participants each completed all three of the remaining scored

trials, and the researcher measured how long it took each participant to detect the change

between the three sets of pictures using the Change Blindness online demo. Upon completion of

the study, the researcher asked the participants if there were any questions and thanked them for

their involvement.

Results

The ANOVA showed no main effect of amount of noise on the latency to detect change,

F(1,10) = .930, p = .358, because there was no significant difference between the control group

(M = 30.89) and the group receiving the ~75dB[A] white noise (M = 39.44). The ANOVA also

revealed no main effect of the number of trial on the latency to detect change, F(2,20) = 1.202, p

= .321, as there were no significant differences across the scores from Trial 1, Trial 2, and Trial 3

(M = 31.67, 31.75, and 42.08, respectfully). Furthermore, the ANOVA showed no interaction

effect between the amount of noise and number of trial, F(2,20) = .256, p = .78. Thus, neither
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 8

the amount of noise or the number of trial appeared to have any significant effect on the ability to

detect change (see Figure 1).

Discussion

Neither the amount of white noise nor the number of trails had any significant effect on

the latency to detect change. There were no significant differences in the ability to detect change

between the noise and control conditions or across the three trials, and there was no interaction

between the amount of noise and the number of trials. Neither variable had any significant effect

on the participants detection of change in regards to the change blindness phenomenon.

The current study hypothesized that the control group would complete the change

blindness task significantly faster than the group exposed to the white noise. The study also

hypothesized that the third trial scores would hold a faster time than the first or second trial

scores, as the participants would have been exposed and familiarized with the task by the third

trial. However, the hypothesis of this study was not supported by the data, as no significant

effects were observed across any of the groups. The white noise group and the control group

completed the task with similar times across all three trials. This may be perhaps the white noise

was not loud enough at only ~75dB[A] to disrupt the participants attention. It may also be

attributed to the fact that having only three scored trials of the change blindness task was not

enough to familiarize and prime the participants to notice change.

The largest difference between the current study and the study by Rensink and ORegan

(1997) was the inclusion of an auditory distraction to the change detection task, as the current

study was more interested in the effects of the auditory system on attention allocation than the

effects of the visual system. Additionally, Rensink and ORegan (1997) showed the images to

the participants for 240 ms in between blank screen intervals lasting 80 ms, while the current
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 9

study showed images for 1 s in between blank screen intervals lasting 200 ms. The study by

Rensink and ORegan (1997) also required the participants to describe the detected change

verbally, while the current study only required the participants to click the mouse head over the

perceived change. Another prominent difference between the two studies was the decision of

Rensink and ORegan (1997) to show each participant 48 sets of images; the current study only

included three. Additionally, the participants in the study by Rensink and ORegan (1997) were

each given six practice trials prior to the beginning of the experimental set in order to familiarize

them with the task, while the participants in the current study were only given one unscored

practice trial.

Again, the major difference between the study by Porubanova and Sikl (2010) and the

current study was the added auditory distraction via the white noise. Similar to the study by

Rensink and ORegan (1997), the study by Porubanova and Sikl (2010) also showed each image

for 240 ms followed by blank screen intervals lasting 80 ms, while the current study showed

every image for 1 s between blank screen intervals of 200 ms. The Porubanova and Sikl (2010)

study also showed every participant 30 sets of images, while the current study only had three

trials. Additionally, the study by Porubanova and Sikl (2010) included changes within the sets of

images that were perceived as either insignificant or significant, while all changes within the

current study were not analyzed for their significance to the image.

Although further research is needed to completely understand the relationship between

auditory distraction and change blindness, the findings of the present study suggest that white

noise has no significant effect on the ability to detect change. In addition, the current study

suggests that exposure to a change blindness task also does not significantly affect the ability of

the participants to detect change. These results imply not only that the auditory system does not
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 10

significantly influence the allocation of attention, but also that it does not impact the

susceptibility of the visual system to the change blindness phenomenon.

CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 11

References

Porubanova, M., & Sikl, R. (2010). Various categories of changes in the inducement of change

blindness. Perception, 39, 106-116.

Rensink, R. A., & O'Regan, J. K. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive

changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368-373.

Schankin, A., Bergmann, K., Schubert, A., & Hagemann, D. (2016). The allocation of attention

in change detection and change blindness. Journal of Psychophysiology,

doi:10.1027/0269-8803/a000172
CHANGE BLINDNESS AND NOISE 12

60

50
Time Elapsed (s)

40

30

20 Control

10 Noise

0
1 2 3
Trial

Figure 1. Figure 1 displays the effect of the amount of noise (control and white noise) and trial

number (1, 2, and 3) on the latency to detect change. The data shown are the marginal mean

scores of each group, and the error bars depict the standard error of the mean for each group.

There were no main effects for either independent variable, nor was there an interaction effect.

The data were analyzed with a two-way mixed design ANOVA.