Change Blindness: Why We Miss Changes in Visual Scenes

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Attention, Perception & Cognitive Control · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Change blindness is a well-established finding in experimental psychology: people can fail to notice a substantial alteration to a visual scene, even when the changed object is plainly visible before and after the alteration. A building can disappear between two pictures, the color of a prominent object can change, or a person in a conversation can be replaced, yet an observer may initially report that nothing happened. The phenomenon concerns detecting the difference between successive states of a scene. It reveals how visual attention, perceptual organization, memory, comparison, and the demands of a task jointly determine what becomes an explicitly noticed change. Rensink (2002); Simons and Levin (1997).

The central scientific question is why an observer can recognize both views of a scene yet miss the transition between them. A useful answer begins with the change signal itself. A sudden alteration normally produces local motion or luminance transients that direct attention to the affected location. When a brief blank display, an eye movement, an interruption, or gradual transformation removes that reliable cue, noticing a change often depends on deliberately selecting and comparing the right information across time. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997); Simons, Franconeri, and Reimer (2000).

What Is Change Blindness?

In research, change blindness refers to a failure to detect a change between two views of a visual scene under conditions in which the change is physically present and potentially discernible. A change might involve an object's identity, color, location, orientation, presence, or relationship to other objects. The observer's inability to report the change is an outcome of a particular perceptual task, not a diagnosis or an enduring personal attribute. It can occur in healthy observers and varies with the scene, the observer's goals, and the test procedure. Simons and Ambinder (2005).

The definition includes two important qualifications. First, detectability depends on the viewing arrangement: a difference immediately obvious in a side-by-side comparison may be difficult across successive presentations. Second, the failure to report a change does not identify a single failed mental operation. Relevant information might never have been encoded, might have been stored but become temporarily inaccessible, or might be available without being compared in the way the task requires. Experiments must distinguish these possibilities before claiming that memory for the scene was absent. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004); Varakin, Levin, and Collins (2007).

Why Can a Large Visual Change Go Unnoticed?

Visual experience often feels continuous and richly detailed. That impression can lead us to expect that a prominent object will automatically be checked against its earlier appearance. Yet ordinary perception is organized around tasks such as finding a route, reading a face, identifying a threat, or following a conversation. Relevant objects receive preferential processing while much of the surrounding scene is used to maintain orientation and meaning. Explicitly detecting that something changed imposes an additional demand: it requires information about the earlier state and a successful relation to the later state. Rensink (2002).

A conspicuous change in a static picture becomes less conspicuous when the moment of transition is hidden. Without an abrupt localized transient, the observer must search for a mismatch among many plausible locations. A large change can therefore take many repetitions to find, while a small but task-relevant change may be spotted quickly. Physical size, subjective importance, eccentricity, visual clutter, and attention at the change location all contribute to performance. The original flicker experiments demonstrated faster identification when a meaningful cue directed the observer to a likely change and when the change affected an object of central interest in the scene. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997).

The phrase "blindness" describes a failure of change awareness within an experimental context. It does not imply a loss of eyesight, a clinical deficit of visual perception, or an absolute absence of information about the altered object. Researchers use the phenomenon to investigate specific stages of visual cognition rather than to assign a general ability score to an individual. Simons and Rensink (2005).

The Classic Flicker Experiment

Alternating photographs and a blank screen

In the influential flicker paradigm introduced by Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark in 1997, an original photograph alternates with a modified photograph. A brief blank interval separates the images. The observer knows that something changes and searches for it; sometimes the two versions alternate repeatedly before the difference is found. Once the changed location is identified, the same alteration often becomes strikingly obvious. The crucial experimental manipulation is the blank interval, which interrupts the local visual transient that would otherwise guide attention to the change. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997).

This design distinguishes knowing that a difference exists from locating and identifying it. Participants can fully understand the instructions, repeatedly view both images, and still need time to find the change. The interval may also influence visual persistence and memory demands, so the experiment establishes a robust phenomenon without reducing every failure to one mechanism. Reaction time or the number of alternations measures success in that particular detection arrangement, not the completeness of a person's entire visual experience. Rensink (2002).

Why a visual cue changes the task

If the viewer receives a useful indication of where to inspect, detection is often considerably easier. The cue narrows the set of objects that must be compared, improves allocation of attention, and reduces uncertainty about location. This result helps explain why change blindness is especially pronounced when the change location is unpredictable. It also demonstrates that an image difference can be visually available even while the unaided task produces repeated misses. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997).

Change Blindness Beyond the Flicker Task

Changes during eye movements, blinks, and brief interruptions

Everyday vision involves frequent eye movements, and the retinal image changes radically whenever the eyes shift. Stable perception depends on coordinating information across these shifts. An object changed during a saccade or another brief visual disturbance may escape detection because the disturbance provides a competing event and disrupts the easy identification of the precise moment and place of change. Experimental work with scene viewing shows that change detection depends on both attentional selection and memory for previously inspected objects. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002); Rensink (2002).

The result does not mean that every blink causes major omissions or that eye movements prevent a coherent view of the environment. Visual behavior is adapted to ongoing tasks, and the laboratory isolates conditions that make change detection unusually demanding. The relevant general principle is that detecting a difference across views is a specific computation with identifiable constraints. Simons and Rensink (2005).

Mudsplashes and irrelevant transients

O'Regan, Rensink, and Clark showed that brief, highly visible shapes appearing elsewhere in a scene—their so-called mudsplashes—could accompany an object change and make that change difficult to notice. The added shapes did not need to cover the changed object. They disrupted the usefulness of a localized visual signal by introducing conspicuous events elsewhere in the image. This illustrates how an event can be perceptually masked by competition and uncertainty even when the modified information itself remains displayed. O'Regan, Rensink, and Clark (1999).

Gradual changes without an interruption

A disruption is a common experimental route to change blindness, but it is not necessary in every case. Simons, Franconeri, and Reimer demonstrated that sufficiently gradual scene changes can escape awareness without a blank interval or abrupt cut. This is especially revealing because the viewer may look at the relevant region while the overall transformation unfolds too slowly to create a strong signal that draws attention. The conditions of change—its temporal profile and the observer's expectations—matter alongside the amount of difference between the initial and final images. Simons, Franconeri, and Reimer (2000).

Films, conversations, and natural interactions

Continuity errors in film offer intuitive examples: objects or actors can change across camera cuts, yet viewers remain engaged in the narrative. In a widely discussed field experiment, Simons and Levin investigated whether people would detect a change in the identity of a person during a real interaction after a brief interruption. Many observers missed the replacement, providing evidence that failures of change detection can occur with people and events outside a photograph task. The specific setup, sampling, and task context matter; the result should not be turned into an unconditional statement that people generally fail to recognize someone they are speaking with. Simons and Levin (1998).

The Cognitive Stages of Detecting a Change

1. Selecting information from the first scene

Successful detection begins with information about the relevant object in the first view. The observer may encode its location, identity, color, shape, or other features. Attention influences which properties are selected and at what resolution; objects serving a current goal receive different treatment from unattended background details. When the task gives no indication of the eventual change location, encoding every potentially relevant property in a complex scene would be an extremely demanding strategy. Rensink (2002).

2. Retaining the earlier state

The first view must be represented well enough to support later comparison. Retention may involve short-lived visual information, visual working memory, and, for previously inspected objects or meaningful scenes, longer-lasting representations. Their contributions depend on presentation time, delay, object complexity, expectations, and whether the observer had reason to remember a feature. Hollingworth and Henderson found accurate memory for aspects of previously attended objects in natural scenes, evidence against the simplest interpretation that unnoticed changes prove that earlier visual detail was never stored. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002).

3. Encoding the new state and matching objects

At the next view, the observer must identify the relevant object or region again. The representation of the later state may be accurate while the earlier state is incomplete, or both may exist while the correspondence between them is not established. Object continuity, spatial position, and scene meaning can guide that matching process. Large changes may even undermine the ease with which the observer treats the pre-change and post-change items as the same object to be compared. Simons and Ambinder (2005).

4. Comparing and reporting the difference

A detected difference usually must be selected as a reportable event. This final stage is essential to interpreting a failure: experiments have documented trials in which observers later showed knowledge of both the pre-change and post-change information while initially reporting no change. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin investigated preserved access to the relevant information despite failed detection, while Varakin, Levin, and Collins found evidence for both representation and comparison failures in a real-world change setting. A missed report therefore cannot automatically be equated with absent memory. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004); Varakin, Levin, and Collins (2007).

Leading Explanations and What Each Can Explain

Attention and the loss of a localized change signal

An attentional account begins with the fact that ordinary visual transients attract processing toward abrupt changes. A brief disruption removes the precise cue that would otherwise distinguish one changing location among many. In a flicker task, observers may repeatedly scan a scene until attention lands on the relevant object at the right time for an effective comparison. Cueing and the greater detectability of central-interest changes support an important role for attention. However, attention is not a single all-or-none gate, and noticing a change also depends on what information survives across views. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997); Rensink (2002).

Sparse scene representations and limits on visual memory

One influential interpretation is that the feeling of a fully detailed visual world is supported by a relatively economical representation, with high-resolution detail available primarily where it is currently useful. On this account, a viewer has the broad gist and spatial organization of a scene without maintaining every fine-grained feature from one moment to the next. Change blindness fits this perspective because reporting a difference requires details that may not have been retained. Early reviews treated such limits as a central implication of the phenomenon. Simons and Levin (1997); Rensink (2002).

Yet a strong conclusion that observers have almost no visual memory goes beyond what the standard task establishes. Successful object-recognition experiments show that detailed representations can persist after attention moves elsewhere. Observers may retain more than they exploit during an incidental comparison. A balanced account recognizes memory limitations without equating change blindness with proof of universally impoverished storage. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002); Simons and Rensink (2005).

Comparison failure and retrieval constraints

A different explanation places the bottleneck in accessing and relating stored representations. A person can retain the earlier object and perceive the later object while failing to establish a difference between them. The distinction is testable by adding recognition probes after trials with missed changes. Evidence from such tests demonstrates that some failures occur after more information has been encoded than the observer's initial answer reveals. The explanatory challenge is to specify which comparisons are made automatically, which require directed attention, and how an object becomes selected for comparison. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004); Varakin, Levin, and Collins (2007).

A multiple-mechanism account

The strongest interpretation of the literature is task-sensitive and multicausal. An unexpected change in a busy real-world interaction may reflect weak encoding or a failed comparison; a gradual change may lack a salient transient; a repeatedly alternating photograph may require search among many candidate locations. These explanations operate at different stages and can coexist. Reviews by Simons and Rensink and by Simons and Ambinder warn that the striking appearance of change-blindness demonstrations has sometimes encouraged claims stronger than the evidence supports. Simons and Rensink (2005); Simons and Ambinder (2005).

What Makes a Change Easier or Harder to Notice?

The task and the observer's intentions

An observer actively searching for a known type of alteration typically has a different detection task from someone unexpectedly encountering a change while pursuing another goal. Beck, Levin, and Angelone reported that intention and scene complexity affected performance and that participants did not accurately predict those effects. Thus, the question "Would I notice?" cannot be answered simply by assessing the size of an alteration; what the observer was asked or motivated to do is part of the phenomenon. Beck, Levin, and Angelone (2007).

Central interest and scene meaning

Objects judged important to the meaning of a photograph may be detected sooner than equally altered background objects. This effect reflects guidance by scene understanding and attention rather than a universal rule that meaningful changes are always seen. Central interest is also partly observer-dependent: a driver, editor, architect, or casual visitor may prioritize different features of the same visual scene. The original flicker study showed a central-interest advantage, and later reviews emphasize task-dependent variations in selection. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997); Simons and Ambinder (2005).

Spatial cues and predictability

A cue naming the changed object, highlighting its location, or reducing the set of possible alternatives can improve detection under appropriate experimental conditions. The benefit can come from better attention before the change, targeted retrieval afterward, or a more efficient comparison strategy; the timing of the cue helps separate these mechanisms. Consequently, useful cue effects do not establish one exclusive theory of why an uncued observer missed the event. Rensink (2002).

Change speed and interruptions

An abrupt visible alteration can produce a transient that calls attention to the changed location. A brief blank screen or film cut disrupts that signal; gradual alterations may produce little localized signal in the first place. These distinct manipulations yield superficially similar omissions through potentially different combinations of processes. The same scene can produce different detection rates depending on the alteration's timing. O'Regan, Rensink, and Clark (1999); Simons, Franconeri, and Reimer (2000).

Individual differences and context

People differ in attention allocation, perceptual expertise, memory resources, visual acuity, and motivation. However, single demonstrations cannot establish a stable personal "change blindness level." Such a conclusion would require reliability across repeated sessions, multiple tasks, appropriately controlled stimuli, and a measurement model that separates response strategies from perceptual sensitivity. The studies cited here establish robust experimental patterns, not a universally standardized assessment with known clinical cutoffs. Rensink (2002).

Change Blindness vs. Inattentional Blindness vs. Attentional Blink

Change blindness concerns a failure to notice that a scene or object differs between two states. The important research conditions usually involve a before-and-after comparison, and visual interruption is a common experimental manipulation. An observer may detect the object itself while missing that it changed. Simons and Levin (1997).

Inattentional blindness refers to a failure to notice an unexpected but visible object or event while attention is engaged elsewhere. Its defining question is whether the unexpected object was noticed at all, even without a comparison of two versions of the scene. The two phenomena share selective-attention constraints but answer different scientific questions. The separate EN-25 article on inattentional blindness owns that intended search topic; treating both as interchangeable would obscure the necessary experimental distinction. Simons and Ambinder (2005).

Attentional blink describes a temporary reduction in reporting a second target presented soon after a first target in a rapid sequence. Researchers study temporal selection within a stream of stimuli rather than a change between extended scenes. Although attention is central across all three areas, their tasks, time scales, and operational definitions differ. The nearby EN-25 research topics on visual attention and attentional blink give each phenomenon its own scientific scope.

Change Detection, Visual Working Memory, and Recognition

Change detection and recognition are related but distinct tasks. In a standard comparison, the subject identifies whether information in the later display differs from earlier information. In recognition, the subject may judge whether an object was previously present, even without noticing any moment of change. Good recognition after a missed change is therefore conceptually possible and empirically documented. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004).

Visual working memory refers to information held for ongoing use. It can support comparison across a brief gap, but change-blindness experiments with complex natural scenes also recruit scene meaning, long-term visual memory, and processes involved in locating the comparison target. A photograph flicker task is not interchangeable with a laboratory capacity task using a small array of colored squares. The latter isolates a much narrower set of variables. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002); Rensink (2002).

Experiments with previously attended objects demonstrate that precise object details can be retained across subsequent eye movements. This evidence complicates the claim that every undetected change must have been forgotten. It directs attention toward the conditions under which representations are accessed, matched, and selected for verbal report. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002); Varakin, Levin, and Collins (2007).

How Researchers Measure Change Blindness

Accuracy, detection latency, and search efficiency

In a flicker task, researchers may record whether a change is detected, the number of alternations required, response time, or whether the participant correctly localizes the change. A response may be classified differently depending on whether participants must report that a change occurred, specify which object changed, or explain the old and new states. These are related but distinct outcomes. A study comparing conditions must keep the scoring rule consistent and should consider speed–accuracy tradeoffs. Rensink (2002).

Eye tracking and attention measures

Eye tracking identifies where the eyes fixate and when they move; it can help distinguish a failure to inspect the changed location from a failure to notice the difference after inspection. Fixation and attention are not identical: attention can be directed away from the current fixation, and a fixated object is not necessarily encoded or compared in all relevant details. Combining eye movements with change-report data and memory tests offers richer evidence than either measure alone. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002).

Memory probes and confidence reports

A researcher can test recognition of pre-change and post-change features after an undetected alteration. If an observer reports information from both states, a purely missing-memory account becomes inadequate for that trial. Confidence and response criteria add information about report decisions, but subjective confidence is not a direct measurement of the contents of awareness. These follow-up methods have provided evidence for more than one pathway to a failed change report. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004); Varakin, Levin, and Collins (2007).

Design and measurement limitations

Laboratory studies must control image exposure, blank duration, change size, eccentricity, color and luminance differences, expectation, and scene relevance. An experiment that changes the object's identity may recruit different processing from one that changes its orientation. Repeated trials also change strategy: an initially unexpected alteration becomes a known possibility once the observer understands the setup. These influences affect both theoretical interpretation and attempts to generalize results to ordinary viewing. Simons and Rensink (2005).

Reliability and validity need separate evaluation. A replicable contrast between a blank-screen and a continuous-display condition establishes a task effect, whereas using one score as a stable measure of attention ability requires additional psychometric validation. Researchers should also avoid assuming that the percentage of missed changes translates directly into an everyday risk probability. The laboratory establishes mechanisms and boundary conditions that subsequent field studies can test.

What the Research Reveals About Visual Awareness

Change blindness demonstrates that the impression of visual continuity does not guarantee explicit knowledge of every visual difference across time. It also shows why an observer's subjective certainty is a weak substitute for measurement: a scene may feel stable while a relevant object has been altered. Research on metacognitive prediction finds that people often overestimate how reliably they or others would detect scene changes, a pattern sometimes called "change blindness blindness." Levin, Momen, Drivdahl, and Simons (2000); Beck, Levin, and Angelone (2007).

The phenomenon alone does not settle whether conscious visual experience is intrinsically sparse, how every perceptual feature is represented, or which neural implementation creates awareness. These questions require converging evidence from attention, visual memory, conscious report, and brain-based measurements. The reliable conclusion is narrower and more useful: noticing change is an achievement of coordinated perceptual and cognitive processes, and that achievement can fail in predictable experimental conditions. Simons and Rensink (2005).

Everyday Relevance: Navigation, Interfaces, and Safety

Change blindness is relevant to situations where people must detect differences across time: monitoring an environment, reviewing a modified document or interface, watching a video, or keeping track of a complicated scene. Sudden cuts, competing visual events, divided goals, and gradual changes can make a specific alteration more difficult to detect. These mechanisms suggest why designers and operators should make important changes conspicuous and provide clear information about what changed. That is a design implication from the experiments rather than evidence that any one alert or interface intervention has been universally validated. O'Regan, Rensink, and Clark (1999); Simons and Ambinder (2005).

In safety-critical contexts, the stakes of missing information are obvious, but experimental change blindness is only one of many relevant factors. Workload, fatigue, visibility, skill, hazard anticipation, equipment, and operating procedures can interact. It would be an error to infer accident rates, individual professional competence, or the effectiveness of a proposed training program from a demonstration with alternating photographs. Applied claims require studies conducted in the relevant setting with meaningful operational outcomes.

For ordinary readers, the immediate practical lesson is about task design. If a difference matters, compare the two states deliberately, focus on likely changed regions, or present them side by side where appropriate. These methods reduce the need to retain a complete scene across an interruption; their effectiveness depends on the particular task. They are sensible comparison strategies, not treatment recommendations and not promises of lasting improvement in attention.

Common Misconceptions About Change Blindness

A large change must always be noticed. Experiments demonstrate that even substantial alterations may go unnoticed when their transition is masked or gradual. Physical difference alone does not determine detection. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997); Simons, Franconeri, and Reimer (2000).

Missing a change proves that the original object was never remembered. Recognition probes show that observers can sometimes retain information from both views while failing to compare it successfully. Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004).

Only laboratory photographs produce change blindness. Field interactions and film-based research demonstrate the relevance of between-view changes in more naturalistic tasks, although each experimental setting imposes its own constraints. Simons and Levin (1998).

Change blindness is a clinical disorder. It is an experimental phenomenon describing a task result. Poor performance in a demonstration neither establishes ADHD nor identifies a neurological condition. Clinically significant attention problems require appropriate assessment in the relevant clinical context.

Attention training can eliminate change blindness. The literature reviewed here does not justify a general promise of eliminating the effect or transferring performance gains from a practiced demonstration to every real-world situation. A strategy that helps in one comparison task does not by itself establish broadly improved cognition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a simple example of change blindness?

Imagine looking at a photograph of a street, seeing a momentary blank screen, and then seeing nearly the same photograph with a large sign removed. You may search for several seconds before identifying the missing sign. When the change is pointed out, it can seem obvious. This kind of alternating-image demonstration closely follows the logic of the classic flicker paradigm. Rensink, O'Regan, and Clark (1997).

Why does a blank screen make it harder to see a change?

The blank interval interrupts the local motion or luminance signal that would normally point to the altered location. The observer must then compare scene information across time, often while searching many possible locations. The interval can also influence visual persistence, which researchers consider when designing experiments. Rensink (2002).

Can you look directly at a change and still miss it?

Yes. Direct fixation does not guarantee that both states of the relevant feature are represented and compared. An eye tracker can document that a region was fixated, but recognizing the difference requires additional processing. Gradual transformations can also be missed without a blank screen. Simons, Franconeri, and Reimer (2000); Hollingworth and Henderson (2002).

Is change blindness the same as inattentional blindness?

No. Change blindness is failure to detect a difference across views; inattentional blindness is failure to notice an unexpected object or event while attention is engaged elsewhere. The distinction lies in the experimental target question, even though selective attention contributes to both phenomena.

Does change blindness mean our visual memory is poor?

It means some visual comparison tasks can produce striking failures. Memory for previously attended objects can nevertheless be detailed, and separate tests show that an observer may retain information without noticing the change. Interpretation requires knowing whether the task tested encoding, storage, retrieval, comparison, or report. Hollingworth and Henderson (2002); Mitroff, Simons, and Levin (2004).

Does everyone experience change blindness?

The effect has been demonstrated in ordinary adult participants across several types of experiments, but there is no scientifically justified universal percentage for all people and all scenes. Detection varies with conditions and instructions. A missed change in an online demonstration cannot establish an individual diagnosis or general attention capacity. Simons and Ambinder (2005).

Can change blindness be prevented?

Its occurrence can be reduced in some tasks by improving the visibility of changes, identifying relevant locations, and structuring explicit comparison. The broader effectiveness of particular interface designs, training programs, or clinical interventions needs independent evaluation. The research supports mechanisms and conditional strategies rather than a single universal remedy.

Conclusion

Change blindness shows that seeing a scene and detecting its transformation are related achievements with different information requirements. Whether an observer notices a change depends on the signal generated by the alteration, how attention is allocated, what is represented across views, and whether relevant information is successfully compared. The classic flicker studies, gradual-change demonstrations, naturalistic person substitutions, and recognition experiments establish the phenomenon while also ruling out the idea that every missed change has one cause. This makes change blindness a particularly productive research window into how visual perception operates across time. Rensink (2002); Simons and Rensink (2005).

Related Articles

Inattentional Blindness: Why We Miss Unexpected Objects explains a distinct failure to notice an unexpected event when attention is engaged elsewhere.

Visual Attention: How We Select Locations, Objects, and Features examines the selection processes that constrain awareness of a changing scene.

Visual Search: Finding Targets Among Distractors connects attentional selection with the detection of objects and visual targets.

Visual Perception: How We Recognize Objects and Scenes examines the interpretation of objects, visual context, and complex scenes.

References

Beck, M. R., Levin, D. T., & Angelone, B. (2007). Change blindness blindness: Beliefs about the roles of intention and scene complexity in change detection. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.01.003

Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2002). Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.113

Levin, D. T., Momen, N., Drivdahl, S. B., & Simons, D. J. (2000). Change blindness blindness: The metacognitive error of overestimating change-detection ability. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062800394865

Mitroff, S. R., Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (2004). Nothing compares 2 views: Change blindness can occur despite preserved access to the changed information. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(8), 1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194997

O'Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., & Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of 'mudsplashes'. Nature, 398, 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/17953

Rensink, R. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135125

Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00427.x

Simons, D. J., & Ambinder, M. S. (2005). Change blindness: Theory and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00332.x

Simons, D. J., Franconeri, S. L., & Reimer, R. L. (2000). Change blindness in the absence of a visual disruption. Perception, 29(10), 1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3104

Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(7), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01080-2

Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644–649. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208840

Simons, D. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006

Varakin, D. A., Levin, D. T., & Collins, K. M. (2007). Comparison and representation failures both cause real-world change blindness. Perception, 36(5), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5572