Perception of the Visual World - Report Example

Cognitive Research Abstract As part of the course requirement, students participated in an online cognitive tests (testmybrain) task in which they were randomly allocated into one of the three experimental condition groups (control, hands free, hands held). Students were also required to enter the results of their change detection task on the Tellus2 online survey. The aim of this research was to explore attention or more specifically the ability to detect change and locate objects in our visual field. From the study it is true that, students in the control group were able to complete their tasks more effectively compared to the hand-free and hand-held phone. Also the results of the students using the hand-free phone were better compared to the hand-held mobile. Introduction and literature review Perception of the visual world is not complete as we imagine that we have the ability to see everything in the visual world, which we obviously do not. This is particularly manifested when some aspect of the information in our visual world adjusts or where we are overwhelmed with visual information and thus cannot focus to all of it. Dynamic modifications also affect the perception of a person in the case of moving objects. If the signals are unavailable to us or when our attention is distracted it is difficult to detect large and significant modifications (Simons and Ambinder, 2005). This aspect is experienced in the real world in multiple CCTV control center where multiple images and motion are evident. In this case, it is possible to miss an action. This research report explores the capability to notice change and situate objects in our visual field. The literature of the research paper will offer justification of the testable research hypothesis which includes: condition is better than handheld, condition is better than hand free, and hand free is better than hand held. In the control condition, the task was completed under standard condition, in the handheld mobile, the cognitive task was completed while conversing on the mobile phone and in this case, the phone is held by the non-dominant hand, whilst in the hands free mobile, the cognitive task was completed while chatting to someone on the mobile phone, but in this case, there is the use of a formal hands free device, or the phone is place in a desk and in speaker mode. Studies have indicated that the use of mobile phones whilst driving impairs performance. It is however hard to measure the risk of this impairment since the reference is typically made to normal driving without the use of mobile phone (Brookhuis et al., 1994). In many countries and especially in Australia, it is an offence to drive whilst using a hand held mobile phone as this is deemed to cause distraction. Nevertheless, drivers are allowed to use hands free mobile phone and this is not deemed an offence. This assumes that the distraction is caused by the physical action of holding the mobile phone instead of the cognitive load of mobile chatting (De Waard, et al., 2001). According to studies published in the Journal of American Medical Association, the use of cell phones is linked with amplification in glucose use by brain and this implies the brain is being activated by radiofrequencies form the cell phone (Foster and Repacholi, 2004). The results of this study also indicate the impacts of radiofrequency emissions from mobile phones on the activity of the brain (Lai and Hardell, 2011). For instance, the use of mobile phone may result to unwanted psychological responses. This can be linked to our case study whereby, the use of mobile phones while driving can result to various impacts and responses which may cause distractions (Foster, and Repacholi, 2004). A study was carried out by Burns et al (2002) to quantify the impairment from hand held and hand free mobile phone chatting in relation to the deterioration in the driving performance as a result of alcohol impairment. Twenty drivers who were aged between 21 and 45 years with an equal number of males and females were used as participants. The mean of these participants and standard deviation was 32 and 7.8 respectively. The results of this study indicated a considerably poorer driving performance whilst employing a hand held mobile phone compared to hands free mobile and the control condition (Alm, 1994). Furthermore, driving in the control condition (without the use of a mobile phone) produced the best performance (Brookhuis et al, 1991). In addition, driving while using a hands free mobile phone was better compared to the use of a hand held mobile phone (Burns et al., 2002). This was based on the fact that, hand held mobile phones caused distractions which made the drivers to lose focus thus they did not notice moderate traffic, car following, curving road, and changes in traffic lights which resulted to accidents. In the United States, studies have indicated that the use of mobile phones whilst driving has contributed to increased accidents (Fuse, et al., 2001; Redelmeir and Tibshirani, 1997). Efforts have been put forth to pass legislations which allows the use of hands-free mobile phones whilst driving as these have been linked to reduced crashes and accidents (Goodman, et al, 1997). Furthermore, assumptions are based on the fact that the use of hands-free mobile phone while driving is much safer compared to hand-held mobile phones. It is evident that individuals always fail to notice large modifications to visual scenes, an occurrence currently referred to as change blindness (Simons and Levin, 2003). Apparently, the degree of change blindness in visual performance typically inhibits our capability to encode, retain and make comparisons between visual information (Rensink, 2002). In most tasks, change blindness has been deemed to disrupt the cue that would else supplement an immediate modification (Rensink, 2002). For instance, observers lack to notice modifications introduced during a blank, a blank screen, a motion picture cut or an eye movement. Likewise, observers do not notice a modification which is supplemented by other visual cues which distract attention from the modification setting or a modification which gradually takes place over a period of time so that the modification cue is not strong enough to draw attention (Fairclough et al., 2001; Waugh et al., 2000). However, some studies have revealed that performing tasks such as driving whilst using a hands-free mobile phone is not less risky compared to the usage of a hand-held mobile phone. This was revealed by the case-cross over researches, simulation, epidemiological, and meta-analysis which put forth that the amplified cognitive workload was encompassed in holding a conversation but not the actual employment of hands to hold a mobile phone (Laberge-Nadeau, 2003). This is what resulted to amplified risks due to failure of concentration (Recarte and Nunes, 2003). For instance, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed (Strayer William, 2001). It is apparent from this that the use of hands-free mobile phone while driving is more recommended compared to hand-held mobile phones. However, studies have proved that, the control condition whereby both the hand-free and hand-held mobile are not used proved to be much safer (de Waard et al., 2001). The aim of this assignment was to explore the ability to detect change and locate objects in our visual field by exploring on the above named research hypothesis. Discussion In order to compare the three groups of which included control, hand-free and hand-held, a one way ANOVA was carried out. According to the results, the ANOVA was not significant for flicker, F (2,126) = .852, p = .429, nevertheless, ANOVA was noteworthy for shapes, F (2, 129) =13.89, p= .001 On the other hand, the Bonferroni post hoc tests (p Read More