Miss Alpinestarhero
05-03-07, 07:48 PM
....Got this in an email a moment ago from the British Psychological Society who email me new research (im in my final year studying for a psychology Bsc Hons degree at university) and thought id share it with you all - may offer one of many explanations why car drivers just dont see bikes!
Obviously it has it has it flaws, but its still pretty interesting.
Maria
--->>
There's a storm of sensory information out there in the world but your brain
can only process so much at once. To cope, it's armed with an attentional
spotlight that allows you to focus on what you're interested in and ignore
the rest.
This metaphorical spotlight is a clever piece of kit - its beam needn't be
restricted like a torch to one region of space at time. It's rather more
like a highlighter pen on a page - flagging up any objects that match the
features, such as size and colour, that you've decided you're interested in.
This is your mindset, or 'attentional set' as psychologists call it. The
trouble is, what happens when a threat appears outside of your attentional
set? When it comes to driving, Steven Most and Robert Astur report the
consequences can be disastrous.
Fifty-six participants navigated an urban route on a driving simulator. At
each cross-roads there was a sign featuring blue and yellow arrows, and the
participants were told to always follow the blue arrows or always follow the
yellow arrows. This instruction fixed their 'attentional set'. Then suddenly
at the tenth cross-roads, a blue or yellow motorbike swerved into their
path.
Crucially, for half the drivers, the bike was blue when they'd been
instructed to follow yellow arrows, or vice versa. That is, the bike was
inconsistent with their attentional set. These drivers braked 186ms slower
than the drivers for whom the bike colour and relevant arrow colour matched.
Moreover, 36 per cent of them collided with the bike compared with just 7
per cent of the drivers for whom the bike and arrows matched.
"Had this been a real situation instead of a simulation, the consequences of
these collisions could have been life-threatening", the researchers said.
"It appears that attentional set wields substantial power even when the
behavioural urgency of a stimulus might be predicted to override, or
'short-circuit', top-down attentional control".
Obviously it has it has it flaws, but its still pretty interesting.
Maria
--->>
There's a storm of sensory information out there in the world but your brain
can only process so much at once. To cope, it's armed with an attentional
spotlight that allows you to focus on what you're interested in and ignore
the rest.
This metaphorical spotlight is a clever piece of kit - its beam needn't be
restricted like a torch to one region of space at time. It's rather more
like a highlighter pen on a page - flagging up any objects that match the
features, such as size and colour, that you've decided you're interested in.
This is your mindset, or 'attentional set' as psychologists call it. The
trouble is, what happens when a threat appears outside of your attentional
set? When it comes to driving, Steven Most and Robert Astur report the
consequences can be disastrous.
Fifty-six participants navigated an urban route on a driving simulator. At
each cross-roads there was a sign featuring blue and yellow arrows, and the
participants were told to always follow the blue arrows or always follow the
yellow arrows. This instruction fixed their 'attentional set'. Then suddenly
at the tenth cross-roads, a blue or yellow motorbike swerved into their
path.
Crucially, for half the drivers, the bike was blue when they'd been
instructed to follow yellow arrows, or vice versa. That is, the bike was
inconsistent with their attentional set. These drivers braked 186ms slower
than the drivers for whom the bike colour and relevant arrow colour matched.
Moreover, 36 per cent of them collided with the bike compared with just 7
per cent of the drivers for whom the bike and arrows matched.
"Had this been a real situation instead of a simulation, the consequences of
these collisions could have been life-threatening", the researchers said.
"It appears that attentional set wields substantial power even when the
behavioural urgency of a stimulus might be predicted to override, or
'short-circuit', top-down attentional control".