Cognitive Psychology: Attentional Blink- Who Turned Out the Lights?

Attentional blink is defined by psychologist Russel Revlin via Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell (2013) as, "The moment when a person is shifting focus and is unable to attend fully to a new target."  Revlin compares attentional blink to quickly closing and then opening your eyes and the time that it takes for your vision to focus.

The most common research method which studies attentional blink is rapid serial visualization presentation also know as RSVP.  During RSVP a participant is given the task to identify two letters of the alphabet and press buttons when they see those letters whether there is only one letter shown, both or neither.  Letters are presented in a rapid order which changes.  Participants are more accurate when they are given the task to only look for one letter (Revlin 2013).  Below is a video which explains attentional blink and also shows RSVP.

Identifying the second letter if it appears after the first is challenging because the brain has used it's current attention span identifying the first letter. Revlin (2013) states that the average length of a college student's attentional blink is half a second.  That means that if I flash you the letter G followed in rapid secession and then flash you the letter K, it will take you the length of this video:

 after identifying G before you realize that I showed you K.

The real world applications of attentional blink are many; however one that Russell Revlin uses is a driving example.  "Suppose you are driving along a freeway, paying attention to the distance between your car and the one in front of you, as well as to other cars around you.  All of a sudden, you notice that a friend is driving a car in the lane next to you," (Revlin 2013)

Hey, that looks like Dr. Steelman.

"You focus attention to make sure it's your friend.  This impairs your ability to attend to the car in front of you for slightly less than half a second." (Revlin 2013) The length of your blink depends on how physically close your friend is to you (Revlin 2013).  If Dr. Steelman is in the lane next to you, your blink will last longer than if she is in Revlin's words "two lanes over."  While Russel Revlin's example of attentional blink includes distance, attentional blink is most often used to relate visual attention (looking at an object) to the brains ability to process information (time).  In the words of Dr. Kelly Steelman, "It is about momentary depletion of attentional resources."

Now, close your eyes and open your brains.  Imagine that you are a fashion designer (your life is so fabulous).  It's fashion week and your runway show is about to start.  All the seats in the audience are filled and your models are lined up and dressed ready to go.  All that you need to do is quickly go down the line and check over everyone's outfits, so in all your frazzled glory you begin to quickly check over the models.
You start at one end and walk fast saying, "Good." "Great" "Perfect."  Every model's outfit is spot on and not a single stitch out of place so they walk onto the runway.  You reach the second to last model and...wait...nope, a gem is missing on her necklace.  "This needs to be fixed," you yell and move to the last model who you say is good to go.

Ah, oops.  After you give the clear for the last model to go you realize when she gets back that there was a small tear in her sweater.  How did you not see that?  Your show is ruined.  Good thing you're not really a fashion designer right?

Let's address why you missed the small tear.  When it comes to attentional blink, picking up on a something that you know you are supposed to be looking for is challenging when it is followed by something of the same nature.  In the words of the RSVP testing, you are more likely to miss the K when it followed the J that you were also looking for.  The small tear in the sweater went unnoticed because your attention and memory were already used up on the necklace that needed to be fixed.  If there was another model, or a couple of models, with  perfect outfits before the last model, you would have been more likely to notice the sweater.

Let's switch gears and talk about research.

Now, everyone "blinks" right?  People do differ in the length of their blinks though.  Some can even show no attentional blink.  A study  "Individual Differences in the Attentional Blink: The Temporal Profile of Blinkers and Non-Blinkers" found that non-blinkers were more precise in identifying a second target and made less order reversals (Hmm...maybe I did see K? No, no I think it was just G....Maybe...?) than participants who had an attentional blink.

How did they do it?  29 volunteers were selected with corrected-to-normal visual capacity, normal hearing and no history of neurological problems.  They sat down in front of a computer and pressed a space bar to initiate the trial.  A cross which was fixated on the screen appeared and was then followed by letters of the RSVP stream of 18 letters..  The letters flashed across 80 ms.  The first target was always the sixth letter and the second target was either the first, second, third or eighth letter. After the RSVP stream the volunteers were asked to select which target(s) they saw.  The volunteers were told to take their time typing which letter(s) they saw.  This experiment is the same as the CogLab experiment online (Francis, G., & Neath, I. (2013).

The authors of the study state that the significance of their findings is, "The notable ability of non-blinkers to accurately perceive targets presented in close temporal succession might be due to a relatively faster and more precise target selection process compared to large blinkers."(Willems C, Wierda SM, van Viegen E, Martens S 2013)  Attention has a limit and those who do not need the down time to process information are more likely to be able to move on to other information more quickly because brain function is not stuck focusing on another previous object.  Revlin (2013) states that attentional blink as an effect, is less for people of a younger age.

If some individuals really do not have an attentional blink it is possible that RSVP testing could be used to wean certain individuals into careers that better suit people with no attentional blink.  Or, using the fashion example, testing for a low or non-existent attentional blink could have been used to hire an assistant who could quickly identify mistakes in clothing which would allow you as the designer to focus more on other tasks like why your lighting isn't quite right.  Testing for limited to zero attentional blink may be helpful, but it could also throw us into a Ayn Rand Anthem scenario or a George Orwell novel.  Personally, it does not seem logical or even feasible to test for different levels of attentional blink. 

Sources:
Francis, G., & Neath, I. (2013). Attentional Blink. Retrieved from https://coglab.cengage.com/labs/attentional_blink.shtml

Revlin, R. (2013). Cognition and theory and practice. New York: Worth Publishers.

skirts 11. (2010). The attentional blink test [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH6ZSfhdIuM

Willems C, Wierda SM, van Viegen E, Martens S (2013) Individual Differences in the Attentional Blink: The Temporal Profile of Blinkers and Non-Blinkers. PLoS ONE 8(6): e66185. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066185

Major Assignment 4 Revised Post

I chose to upload my video to YouTube.  The audience that I was trying to reach with my project was not only my classmates, but also others in the public who have or had struggled with “tough times” in their life.  I wanted to reach a mass number of people and YouTube was the only outside source that I was familiar with enough to upload a video onto. 

Trying to get the word out about any project is a challenge.  To reach the masses these days it seems that the only way is to get an insane number of views (on YouTube) or by a light speed word of mouth.  To advertise my video I decided to start with the people closest to me.  These people were the people that I have added on Facebook.  I linked my video from YouTube to my wall.  My hope was that the people who could view it through Facebook might like it enough to link it to their friends who might link it to theirs and so on.  The sort of advertising I was hoping to achieve was word of mouth.  Except now in a Web 2.0 era it could almost be changed to word of keyboard.

In an excerpt by Henry Jenkins titled, Why Participatory Web Culture is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions, Henry Jenkins states, “…Participatory cultures, which may or may not be engaged with commercial portals, and Web 2.0 which refers specifically to a set of commercial practices that seek to capture and harness creative energies and collective intelligences of their users…Web 2.0 is a business model…”  The previous is Henry Jenkins’ definition of Web 2.0.  Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 as such in a web article titled What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software as a concept that harnesses collective intelligence and includes a rich user experience by user interaction.  He includes a diagram of Web 2.0 and on the diagram there are lined connecting to sites such as Flickr, Gmail, and Wikipedia.  

YouTube has millions upon millions of videos on the site.  Some of these videos generate money and some YouTube stars become partners of the site.  Under the Terms of Use section, there is a blurb about addressing payment and refund.  It states:

YouTube accepts payment by credit card, Google Wallet account, and any other form of payment that we make available to you. You agree to (i) pay for any Pay Content that you order through the Service and that YouTube may charge your credit card or other form of payment that you indicate for any Pay Content ordered, along with any additional amounts (including any taxes), and (ii) abide by any relevant Terms of Service or other legal agreement…

Henry Jenkins’ stated that Web 2.0 is a business plan and it is apparent from the terms of use on the site that YouTube is a business plan that is generating income from the creative intelligence of others.

While Henry Jenkins believes that Web 2.0 and the term participatory culture should not go together, every Google search result includes both Web 2.0 and participatory culture in the titles of the links.  Web 2.0 is participatory culture.  In a slideshow presentation by Martha Hardy and Nicole Theis-Mahon from the University of Minnesota reiterate that Web 2.0 is a collaboration among users.  They also include O’Reilly’s fact that Web 2.0 includes rich user experiences. 

 Participation is defined by Dictionary.com as,

 — vb  (often foll by in ) to take part, be or become actively involved, or share (in)

Collaborations are the work of at least two or more people and user experiences mean that others have become involved with a site.  Web 2.0 is participation.  Under the YouTube Community Guidelines page one of the heading titles is YouTube is a Community.  A community means that a group of people interact with each other and their surroundings.  They participate.  YouTube allows users to participate by allowing comments and video responses. By calling the site a community, they are implying user participation.

YouTube may have an motive to generate an income, but they also have millions of users and videos.  For this reason alone I decided to upload my video onto their site.  I felt that it was the best platform to reach a large public audience and I believe that YouTube is a helpful site that is an easy example of Web 2.0 and a participatory culture.  I hope my audience enjoys my video.

Major Assignment Three Link

"Dream Machines" by Will Wright

First off, yay! A reading assignment from a person who I actually know of.  Will Wright created The Sims which is my favorite game of all time.  I think that everyone has that one game that they will always enjoy playing and for me it's The Sims.  I've been playing it since the very first edition came out so about ten years.  Sadly I haven't had the money to buy the third edition and my computer is breaking down, so when I get a new computer I can't wait to buy the third edition.  It's a fantastic time waster.

Now on to Mr. Wrights article.  To me he is arguing in favor of video games by using simple logic.  He says that video games are not just mind sucking time voids, but rather they inspire creativity and imagination.  I completely agree with him.  For example, playing The Sims allowed me to become more creative in how I build my houses.  I started off just using the pre-designed houses that are available, and then I moved on to changing those models, until finally I started messing around with landscape and different structures to create my own designs.  A video game allowed me to think of new ways to change something.  My creativity was tested and improved because I would get tired of the same decor or style so I would have to create new designs and think of new places to lay out furniture.

I believe that the reason why society only sees the negative effects of video games is because there is a big focus on our youth.  Almost every child from a young age knows how to use some digital device because we are living in a thickly populated digital age.  Video games have a way of taking up something called free time.  When a child has free time and they start to play a game that they are enjoying the world fades away.  I used to play The Sims right when I got up and then finally at midnight I would be turning it off to go to sleep in the same clothes that I slept in the night before.  When interest is entertained, time does not matter, especially to younger people. 

Our world is becoming obsessed with controlling health and the youth.  Some see video games as nothing but crap that needs to be destroyed.  Those people are so focused on control that they lose their creativity and imagination because they only see a square box instead of a square box that is actually a house with pillars and fire places and a fantastic kitchen.

"Art Form for the Digital Age" by Henry Jenkins

Video games are art.  So says Henry Jenkins.  Just how the cinema is art for the old eras.  Jenkins states that some people do not consider video games to be artwork.  I say psh.  Do they have any idea how much time and dedication have to go in to create a video game?  Would they consider a Disney-Pixar film (such as Finding Nemo) to not be art?  Look at all of the contrast and lighting and shading that had to be done to create that masterpiece.

I can honestly say however that I am guilty of looking at video games as just video games.  I never did think to see them as a piece of artwork even though they should be. Truly.  A point that Jenkins makes is that video games are starting to become the new thing for this generation.  Cinema was the fad back when it was starting out.  And while video games have been around for a while, they have only recently (in the 2000's) started getting better.  Jenkins states that video games help contribute to the demand of faster computers and better graphics cards.  I think that everyone should be appreciative of video games and try to not only see them as games, but art like the Point Jenkins is stating. 

Besides, what else is everyone hearing about that is true art.

The Oatmeal Is Taking on FunnyJunk and Copyright

**The below statements are reiterated from other sources.  The opinions are all my own.  All external information is linked below.  I choose not to list the link to FunnyJunk because I do not support them in anyway.  If you want to learn about them more then type their name in a search browser.**

After having a segment on copyright and fair use, I've become more interested in copyright policies.  Yesterday I was watching a sxephil video on YouTube about an update on a lawsuit that is trying to get filed against The Oatmeal from FunnyJunk.

From what I gathered, FunnyJunk is a website where users can upload pictures from other websites and then they can edit over and create almost memes. There original artists of the pictures are not credited. FunnyJunk makes money off of adds.  So The Oatmeal asked for them to take down his comics that are on their sites because they are making money off of his comics.  He created a comic that called out FunnyJunk on their copyright problem.  However FunnyJunk stated that they do follow DMCA rules so if they hear a report about copyright infringement, then they will take down the picture and block the user.  However there were a good number of The Oatmeal comics and others (including Hyperbole & a Half and Cyanide and Happiness) that were/are still up on FunnyJunk's site.

FunnyJunk filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal stating that he created slanderous comments that harassed the site and they requested $20,000 from him for the harassment and money that they lost from having to take down his comics which were never credited to him.

The Oatmeal's reaction was perfect.  He created a comic addressed to FunnyJunk and their lawyer that he will not pay them $20,000 but instead he decided that he was going to raise $20,000 and give half to The American Cancer Society and the other half to The World Wildlife Federation.  The Oatmeal raised the money in an hour and now he has raised over $100,000.  And now, the lawyer is filing a suit against The Oatmeal saying that the money he raised for CHARITY goes against some law.

To me the whole thing is ridiculous.  I agree with The Oatmeal and his actions.  FunnyJunk's request of money from him is just insanely stupid.  They want money from an artist who was not credited, and they made money from his comics (and also other comics).  I lawyer who took the case is getting a lot of flack including emails and phone calls from people who support The Oatmeal.  However, The Oatmeal never stated anywhere to his followers to call and harrass anyone.  He stated in a comic that he just wants to create regular comics and not comics that are addressed to the whole possible lawsuit.

Overall, when I heard this I was blown away by the reactions and actions of FunnyJunk as well as their users and their lawyer.  I hope that this whole ordeal brings light to misinformed people on what copyright is and how it works.

Here is the link to The Oatmeal's page.  He includes links to other comics of his that address the ordeal as well as the letters from FunnyJunk's lawyer Charles Carreon.

Also, donations can still be made to Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad.

Web 2.0 by Tim O'Reilly

Web 2.0 is a term that is completely unknown to me.  In the beginning of the web page Tim O'Reilly gives examples of what past digital media or Web 1.0 would be present with Web 2.0.  Personal websites are now called blogs.  Okay that makes sense...blogging seems to have become more popular lately than in the past.  There are other examples such as double click which is Web 1.0 but now the Web 2.0 term is called Google Adsense.  The other examples that the author included to try and clear up what Web 2.0 is, are completely foreign to me still.  

After the first page...I'm still thinking, "What the heck is Web 2.0?"

Tim O'Reilly includes a diagram with a box in the middle that states how the web is our (audience or public) platform.  Above he includes boxes with blogs, Wikipedia, and some other modern terms such as Flickr.  So now I am starting to wonder...is Web 2.0 a way to categorize modern websites and modern digital terms that the new generation (like people my age) are saying and using?

The author says that Web 2.0 is a new era...an era...so I'm starting to believe that Web 2.0 is not a term for with one definition.  It is a term that is an umbrella for modern digital terms and web sites.  It is a categorical term.  Web 2.0 also includes participation from the audience that is participating.  From what I gathered, Web 2.0 must include trust from the creators of sites as well as a collective team effort from users.

Participatory Culture and Web as Told By Henry Jenkins

How is the phrase "Do It Yourself" a reflection of self expression?  You are not creating an idea yourself, instead you are simply following someone other person's ideas.  I disagree with Henry Jenkins on his belief that the phrase allows people to fall back into a void of self expression.

Just a side note, how can Henry Jenkins call himself a true scholar on female-centered science fiction in the 1990's?  From his picture he seems to be a male so how can he consider himself truly knowledgeable on such a topic when he could not have a true experience that only a female can have.  Going along with his whole idea of participatory culture, it seems that he may believe that he is an extremely knowledgeable source because of his academic work and the participation that he may have experienced from the presence of other females.  Maybe he gained some knowledge of the culture of female-centered science fiction through the participation of other females since he is so obviously male.

After reading his blog entry I still do not understand the difference between participatory web culture and Web 2.0  I'm hoping that this reading can be cleared up in class.