1 / 16

Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon

Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon. Julie Witherup Amanda Caddell Angie French Kevin Utt. Introduction. Moray (1959) Cocktail Party Phenomenon Can select to listen to information from one source in a busy environment But can pick up “relevant” information from unattended sources.

dominick-hickey
Télécharger la présentation

Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon Julie Witherup Amanda Caddell Angie French Kevin Utt

  2. Introduction • Moray (1959) • Cocktail Party Phenomenon • Can select to listen to information from one source in a busy environment • But can pick up “relevant” information from unattended sources

  3. Introduction (cont.) • Neisser and Becklen (1975) • Selective “looking” • People watch game and count passes • Miss person walking through middle

  4. Research Idea • The person in Neisser and Becklen could be considered an unattended channel • So if the person is made relevant, should not the person be easier to detect?

  5. Hypothesis • Participants will detect a visually relevant person more often than a less visually relevant person in a Neisser and Becklen type video

  6. Method • Participants • 26 students • 25 Caucasian • 1 Japanese • 31% freshman • 23% sophomores • 23% juniors • 23% seniors

  7. Equipment • Video production • Digital Camcorder: Sony digital handycam, model number DCR-TRV17 • Video edited by: QuickTime Pro by Apple Computers, Inc. • Apparatus • Video presented on: • Gateway computer model # E-3400 • Windows 98 • QuickTime version 6.5 • Screen size 15” diagonal

  8. Stimuli • Recording • All done in same room with camera same position – done in one setting to make sure • Background kept the same in all cases • Three stages • Game in black T-shirt • Game in white T-Shirt • First one then the second person walked across the cameras field of view

  9. Stimuli (cont.) • Production--3 video clips superimposed • Resulting 2 Videos • Personally relevant person • Less personally relevant person

  10. Procedure • Randomly assigned • Condition 1: Relevant Person • Condition 2: Less Relevant Person • Video • Questionnaire • How many bounce passes? • Demographics • Questions relevant to condition • Relevant—“How often do you eat in the UG?” • Less Relevant—”How often do you go to the Career Center?” • Did you see someone walk through the players? • If so, who was it?

  11. Results • Chi Square Analyses • Comparing the frequency of whether participants detected a person walking across the screen in each condition ² (1) = 1.39, ns

  12. Chi Square Analyses • Comparing the frequency of whether participants identified the person walking across the screen in each condition ² (2) = 6.19, p < .05

  13. Discussion • No significant relationship on the number of times the person was detected • However, relevance did seem to influence the number of times the person was correctly identified • Even when seen, there were no attempts at identification of the less relevant person

  14. Limitations • Counterbalancing of the attention task • Personally relevant individual may not have been equally relevant to all participants • The two people’s paths were not identical

  15. Future Directions • Use a a person that is truly significant to each individual for the relevant condition, e.g., coach

  16. References • Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56-60 • Neisser, U. & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480-494

More Related