Inattentional Blindness: Why We Miss Unexpected Objects

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

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

Inattentional blindness is the failure to consciously notice an unexpected but visible object or event while attention is engaged in another task. An observer may look toward a scene, have adequate vision, and successfully perform the instructed task while failing to report something striking that appeared within view. The phenomenon exposes a fundamental property of human perception: the information available to the visual system exceeds what a person selects, becomes aware of, and can later describe. Mack and Rock (1998); Simons and Chabris (1999).

The best-known demonstration asks viewers to count basketball passes while a person wearing a gorilla costume crosses the scene. A substantial proportion of participants miss the unexpected figure, although the exact proportion depends on the task, stimulus, and experimental conditions. Other studies find comparable failures among expert visual searchers and under carefully controlled manipulations of expectations and attentional priorities. Inattentional blindness is therefore a reproducible experimental phenomenon with mechanisms that remain an active subject of research. Simons and Chabris (1999); Drew et al. (2013).

What Is Inattentional Blindness?

In cognitive psychology, inattentional blindness describes a failure to notice a stimulus that was physically present and potentially visible because the observer's attention was directed toward other information. The defining combination is an unexpected event, a competing task or attentional demand, and an absence of reported awareness of the event. The term “blindness” is metaphorical: it refers to awareness under specific conditions rather than disease of the eyes or damage to visual acuity. Simons (2000).

Imagine watching a busy intersection for a specific vehicle while a cyclist enters your field of view. You may identify every car matching your goal yet fail to notice the cyclist. A laboratory result demonstrates that such a kind of miss is possible; whether it explains a particular real-world event requires independent evidence about visibility, sight lines, timing, task demands, and later reporting. Inattentional blindness should be used as an experimentally defined explanation, not a label automatically applied whenever someone overlooks something.

The three essential elements

First, the unexpected object must be sufficiently available to the senses for a reasonable opportunity to detect it in that experiment. If it was hidden, too dim, or presented outside the visual field, ordinary sensory limitations could explain the miss. Second, the observer is pursuing an attention-demanding activity, such as tracking selected objects, counting events, or searching for a target. Third, investigators determine whether the observer noticed the unexpected item, usually by an immediate question that tests spontaneous report before more specific recognition probes. These design elements allow researchers to distinguish a failure of noticing from an ordinary inability to see the stimulus. Mack and Rock (1998); Most et al. (2005).

What “noticing” means is a measurement question. A participant might register a feature without forming a stable object representation, might momentarily become aware of something unusual without identifying it, or might identify an event but fail to remember it during a delayed interview. An immediate, carefully worded report reduces some of this ambiguity, while no single report can reveal every stage of processing.

Where the Research Began

Studies of selective looking preceded the modern terminology. Researchers learned that when observers followed one stream of activity, surprising events in an overlapping stream could go unreported. Arien Mack and Irvin Rock developed systematic experimental methods for studying perception when attention was directed elsewhere, culminating in their 1998 book Inattentional Blindness. Their work made the relationship between attention and conscious report an explicit empirical question. Mack and Rock (1998).

In 1999, Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris extended the approach to dynamic video scenes. Participants watched people exchange basketballs and counted passes by one team. During a critical segment, an unexpected person crossed the display. Many viewers did not report the event. Crucially, noticing varied with details such as what observers were following, the appearance of the unexpected object, and the difficulty of the counting task. The study's lesson concerns selective attention in a specified task; it is not a claim that a fixed percentage of the population fails to see gorillas. Simons and Chabris (1999).

A later research program connected these striking demonstrations to theories of attentional selection, capture, and task-dependent priorities. The scientific question became more precise: why does one unexpected stimulus reach awareness when another equally visible stimulus does not? Simons (2000); Most et al. (2005).

The Invisible Gorilla Experiment Explained

The gorilla experiment is memorable because a moving, recognizable person seems too obvious to miss. Participants do not passively view the video: they actively count a subset of ball passes. That instruction creates a goal, and the goal makes some moving figures relevant and others less relevant. The unexpected person enters a scene that is already full of motion, competing figures, and decisions about what to count. Simons and Chabris (1999).

Why viewers miss the figure

An instruction to count passes requires repeatedly selecting the relevant players and ball movements. The observer's attention becomes tuned to information that supports counting. The unexpected figure may be visible on the screen yet fall outside the active selection priorities. Differences in how much the figure resembles attended or unattended objects can change the likelihood of a report. This is why the experiment is more informative than the claim that people simply fail when “distracted.” The primary task organizes attention and creates a particular pattern of inclusion and exclusion. Simons and Chabris (1999); Most et al. (2005).

The result also challenges people's predictions about their own awareness. Watching the video after being told to look for the gorilla is a different experiment: the viewer now expects the figure, and its appearance belongs to the task. Previous knowledge alters the conditions that made the initial miss possible. Repeatedly playing the clip therefore cannot estimate the chance of noticing a genuinely unexpected event on a first viewing.

What the experiment proves—and what it leaves open

The experiment establishes that substantial, visible events can be missed during selective attention tasks. It establishes that task instructions and stimulus relationships affect noticing. It does not, by itself, locate a unique brain region that causes the miss or resolve exactly how far unattended signals are processed. Nor does it establish that every person will miss the same event, that an eye movement guarantees awareness, or that errors on this task diagnose a disorder. These additional claims require different evidence and experimental designs. Simons (2000).

Why the Brain Misses Unexpected Objects

There is no single explanatory variable that predicts noticing in every situation. Contemporary research examines how task goals establish attentional priorities, how stimuli match those priorities, how demanding the primary task is, and how expectations alter the relevance of incoming information. These processes interact, so a highly conspicuous object may still be missed when its features are poorly aligned with what the observer is selecting. Most et al. (2005); Liu et al. (2023).

Selective attention and task goals

Selective attention helps observers perform a task despite competing sensory information. When someone counts blue objects, follows a particular speaker, or searches a radiograph for nodules, the task promotes some visual features, locations, and object categories. This selectivity is useful for goal-directed performance. It also means that visually available information outside the current selection can fail to receive sufficient processing for report. Inattentional blindness reveals a cost of successful selection: the task can be performed well while a different, unforeseen event is missed.

A major theoretical framework links attentional set—the properties an observer is prepared to select—to awareness of unexpected objects. In the work of Most and colleagues, features relating an unexpected object to the observer's current attentional priorities helped predict what entered awareness. The relation between attention and awareness is therefore more specific than a simple limited-capacity slogan. Most et al. (2005).

Similarity, features, and the attentional set

An unexpected object sharing a relevant feature with attended material may be more likely to attract awareness. For example, in a task organized around a particular color or shape, an additional object carrying that feature may compete more effectively for selection. Yet instructions alone do not always determine the operative set. In seven experiments using dynamic counting, Liu and colleagues found that participants' selection could track the feature that most efficiently distinguished task-relevant from task-irrelevant objects, even when it differed from the feature named in instructions. This suggests that observers adapt their priorities to the informational structure of the task. Liu et al. (2023).

This finding helps explain an apparent paradox: changing the visible color of an unexpected object may alter detection even when its size, duration, or movement is held constant. The change can make the object more or less similar to the information that the observer currently treats as task-relevant. Salience and relevance are related but experimentally separable concepts.

Attention demand and resource competition

Counting several moving events or distinguishing many similar targets can occupy the operations needed for the primary task. Under certain experimental conditions, higher primary-task demand is associated with more failures to notice an unexpected event. Still, “cognitive load” is a family of task-dependent ideas, and researchers measure it in different ways. One cannot infer a universal load threshold at which consciousness turns off, nor assume that all forms of mental difficulty have identical effects on noticing. Early sustained-attention demonstrations already showed that variations in the monitoring task matter. Simons and Chabris (1999).

A useful explanation must identify the task, the competing information, and the measured noticing outcome. Statements such as “multitasking makes everyone blind” are too broad. Some tasks create overlapping demands, whereas others distribute processing differently across time or modality; the size and direction of interference depend on the situation.

Expectations and meaningfulness

Expectation is not simply a belief that an object will appear. It may determine which categories are meaningful for the task and what type of deviation is likely to attract attention. Chu and Davies examined unexpected words presented during a picture-naming task. Participants were more likely to report words semantically related to task-relevant picture categories than unrelated words, and changing the category of the task stimuli altered which unexpected words were reported. The findings suggest that expectations and task meaning jointly influence attentional selection. Chu and Davies (2024).

Novelty alone thus does not guarantee detection. An event can be objectively unusual and still fail to align with the features or meanings prioritized by the observer. Equally, a task-related cue may be noticed with comparatively little visual prominence. The exact balance of bottom-up sensory salience and top-down relevance remains an empirical question, addressed through controlled stimulus comparisons rather than everyday intuition.

Can You Look Directly at Something and Still Miss It?

Yes. Eye position and conscious report are distinct measurements. Fixating a region ensures that its visual information falls on a portion of the retina with relatively high spatial resolution, but it does not ensure the observer selects and identifies every object there. Attention can be directed toward one feature or object while overlapping information remains outside the active task set. Similarly, attention can sometimes be deployed away from the exact fixation point. Eye tracking is therefore valuable evidence about where the eyes were directed, but it is not a direct record of conscious awareness. Drew et al. (2013).

In a striking study, Trafton Drew, Melissa Võ, and Jeremy Wolfe asked 24 radiologists to inspect chest CT images for lung nodules. An image of a gorilla, dramatically larger than the average nodule, appeared on a final case. Eighty-three percent of the radiologists failed to report it, and eye-tracking showed that many of those who missed the gorilla had looked at its location. The participants were skilled at the assigned medical-search task, but that expertise did not guarantee noticing of an unexpected, task-irrelevant figure. Drew et al. (2013).

This demonstration concerns a deliberately inserted, nonmedical object in a small experimental sample. It should not be used to estimate clinical error rates, judge individual clinicians, or infer that radiologists routinely fail to see large pathologies. The research isolates attention and expectation under a particular search instruction; clinical diagnosis and patient safety require studies designed around those outcomes.

How Researchers Measure Inattentional Blindness

Researchers generally create a primary task, introduce an unexpected stimulus on a critical trial, and then assess the participant's awareness. In a static paradigm, observers may make a perceptual judgment about a briefly presented central display while an irrelevant shape appears nearby. In sustained or dynamic paradigms, observers track moving objects or monitor a stream of events over several seconds. The two approaches probe related but not identical temporal conditions. Mack and Rock (1998); Simons and Chabris (1999).

The critical trial and the problem of surprise

The unexpected event is most informative when the observer genuinely has no reason to anticipate it. Once a person knows that the experiment includes unusual objects, a repeat trial measures behavior under altered expectations. This makes many inattentional-blindness paradigms effectively dependent on a small number of critical observations per participant. Researchers can vary conditions across groups, but repeatedly testing the same participant risks changing the construct under investigation.

The unusual role of surprise creates design challenges for replication and individual measurement. Investigators must keep instructions, display timing, response questions, and prior exposure sufficiently controlled to preserve the interpretation of a miss. A task that begins by warning participants to watch for unexpected objects has already modified their attentional set.

Awareness questions and scoring

One experiment may ask whether the participant saw anything unusual; another may request a description of the object, its position, or its appearance. Open-ended spontaneous reports are often paired with increasingly specific probes. A strict scoring rule might require correct identification, while a more permissive rule counts noticing that something occurred. These choices influence reported rates. A participant's failure to name an object should not automatically be treated as proof that absolutely no information about the stimulus was processed.

Comparing studies therefore requires attention to the definition of awareness, the sequence of questions, exclusion criteria, stimulus visibility, task accuracy, and the handling of participants familiar with a demonstration. Numerical percentages become meaningful only alongside the design that produced them.

Eye tracking, behavior, and neural measures

Eye tracking distinguishes overt visual orientation from the reported experience of the stimulus. Response times and error patterns can reveal interference even when an observer denies noticing a distractor. Neural recordings may identify stimulus-related processing under conditions where conscious identification is absent. None of these measurements alone establishes the subjective content of the observer's experience. Simons's review emphasizes the difference between implicit effects on performance and explicit reports of awareness. Simons (2000).

For this reason, careful experiments ask narrower questions: Did an irrelevant feature affect speed? Did a visible event lead to a spontaneous report? Did the person identify the object? Could an unreported stimulus still influence a subsequent choice? Different methods can answer different parts of the overall problem.

Inattentional Blindness Versus Similar Phenomena

Inattentional blindness versus change blindness

In inattentional blindness, the central event is often the unexpected appearance of an object during attention to another task. In change blindness, the central event is a difference between successive states of a scene that the observer fails to detect. A person may overlook a newly appearing figure while counting passes, or fail to detect that a familiar object changed color between two views. Both involve limits on awareness, but they employ different experimental operations and do not imply that the same process explains every error. Simons and Chabris (1999).

Inattentional blindness versus the attentional blink

The attentional blink refers to reduced report of a second target that appears shortly after a first target in a rapid sequence. Its key manipulation concerns temporal competition and the interval between targets. Inattentional blindness generally involves unexpected events while an observer performs another activity, often over a longer period. Calling both “missing something” obscures these distinct paradigms and their different explanatory questions.

Inattentional blindness versus mind wandering

Mind wandering describes attention shifting from the current task toward internally generated thought. It may change what a person detects in the environment, but inattentional blindness does not require daydreaming or a lapse of task engagement. A highly focused participant who counts every pass accurately may still miss an unexpected figure. Strong primary-task performance and a failure of incidental noticing can coexist.

Inattentional blindness versus ordinary visual impairment

Poor vision, low illumination, obstruction, weak contrast, and insufficient exposure duration can each produce failures of detection. Inattentional-blindness research seeks to demonstrate missed awareness even when the relevant stimulus is adequately available to sight. Likewise, neurological visual neglect, visual-field loss, and certain psychiatric or neurocognitive symptoms have distinct clinical definitions and assessment pathways. A single missed object in an experimental video does not establish any of those conditions.

Inattentional blindness versus forgetting

A later failure to remember an object could arise at several stages: it may never have been noticed, may have been briefly experienced but poorly encoded, or may have been encoded and subsequently inaccessible. Inattentional-blindness experiments try to probe awareness as soon as possible after the unexpected event, but the distinction between awareness and report is methodologically important. Researchers should not automatically substitute “forgot” for “never noticed,” or vice versa.

Does Expertise Prevent Inattentional Blindness?

Expertise changes what people look for and how effectively they discriminate relevant features. A trained observer may detect small task-relevant anomalies that novices miss. Yet expertise can also produce strong expectations about which visual patterns matter. The radiologist experiment provides evidence that extensive practice in a particular visual search task does not guarantee detection of a conspicuous but irrelevant event. The implication is limited and precise: skill in one attentional set does not make an observer universally aware of everything in the display. Drew et al. (2013).

It would be equally mistaken to conclude that expertise never helps. Search strategies, domain knowledge, and specialized anomaly-detection procedures may improve detection of relevant signals. Whether a training program improves noticing of unexpected events requires controlled outcomes appropriate to those events. Inattentional blindness is particularly useful for understanding why expert and novice attention can differ without assuming either group processes every visible detail.

Are Some People More Prone to Inattentional Blindness?

A compelling hypothesis is that people with greater working-memory capacity, attentional control, or other cognitive abilities should notice more unexpected objects. However, a comprehensive review and meta-analysis by Simons, Hults, and Ding examined 38 records containing individual-difference measures, with effect-size data from 31 records across 74 between-groups samples. Across the cognitive and personality variables assessed, the authors found little reliable evidence that these measures predict who notices an unexpected event. The evidence was constrained by small samples for many comparisons and methodological variability, so the result calls for better studies rather than proof that individual differences never matter. Simons et al. (2024).

This is a consequential caution for consumer attention tests. Missing the gorilla in one demonstration is not a validated measure of intelligence, an attention-span score, a personality type, or a diagnosis of ADHD. An experimental event with one critical trial also presents challenges for establishing stable test-retest reliability. Serious individual assessment requires psychometrically developed measures and a defined purpose.

Age, familiarity with a task, perceptual ability, and the social or cultural meaning of stimuli may be relevant in specific designs. The literature does not justify a universal ranking of demographic groups for noticing every class of unexpected event. The appropriate question is which experimentally manipulated conditions and measured participant characteristics predict detection for a specified task.

Everyday Situations: What the Evidence Supports

Driving and competing cognitive demands

Driving involves continuous selection among vehicles, pedestrians, signs, speed cues, and the surrounding scene. In simulator studies, Strayer, Drews, and Johnston found that cell-phone conversations could impair response to relevant traffic events and reduce explicit recognition of roadside information. Their results support the importance of attentional competition and help explain why eyes directed toward a road do not guarantee complete processing of its contents. They do not justify treating every individual traffic collision as proven inattentional blindness without reconstructing the event. Strayer et al. (2003).

A practical implication is to reduce unnecessary cognitive competition during safety-critical activities and to use environmental design, checking routines, and established safety procedures where missing an unexpected event has serious consequences. The best intervention depends on the task and the available evidence; no one tactic guarantees complete visual awareness.

Medical image search and professional monitoring

The radiologist study demonstrates how tightly specialized attention can serve its assigned goal while missing material outside the task set. Similar concerns arise in quality inspection, security screening, or operational monitoring, but any numerical rate or proposed intervention must be established separately in the professional setting under study. An artificial gorilla inserted into a medical image is a demonstration of a perceptual mechanism, not an estimate of diagnostic malpractice. Drew et al. (2013).

Everyday conversations and busy environments

A person searching a crowd for a friend may overlook an unusual activity elsewhere in the scene. Someone concentrating on a presentation may miss a movement across the room. These examples illustrate the general logic of selection and task-dependent relevance. They are illustrative situations, not claims that researchers measured a specific miss rate in each one. The science concerns conditions under which noticing can fail and how those conditions can be tested.

Can Inattentional Blindness Be Reduced?

There is no established universal exercise that eliminates inattentional blindness. Detection can change when the observer's task, expectations, stimulus features, or opportunity for monitoring changes, but interventions must be evaluated for the specific environment in which they are intended to work. Teaching a person the gorilla demonstration often changes the outcome of a repeated demonstration precisely because the unexpected event has become expected. That improvement does not establish transfer to future unforeseen hazards.

When a task has serious safety implications, sound practice may include reducing competing work, clarifying monitoring responsibilities, using checklists for known risks, designing salient and interpretable alerts, and verifying critical events through independent channels. Such approaches address known task demands and procedures; evidence from inattentional-blindness experiments alone does not quantify the effectiveness of any particular safety program. Simons (2000); Strayer et al. (2003).

Commercial brain-training promises require special scrutiny. Practicing one attention task might improve performance on that task without reliably transferring to spontaneous awareness of unrelated unexpected objects. A claim of broad improvement needs well-controlled studies measuring detection outside the trained setting, suitable comparison groups, and durable real-world outcomes.

Inattentional Blindness and the Study of Conscious Awareness

Inattentional blindness matters to consciousness research because it separates physical stimulus availability from what an observer can report seeing. It challenges the intuitive assumption that the visual world enters awareness in full detail wherever the eyes are pointed. At the same time, a failure of report cannot by itself settle whether all stimulus processing was absent or determine one comprehensive theory of consciousness. Mack and Rock (1998); Simons (2000).

The relationship between attention and conscious perception is experimentally difficult because observers typically report awareness using attention and memory. Investigators therefore combine behavior, carefully timed questions, eye movements, and other measures to separate candidate mechanisms. Evidence that a missed stimulus influenced performance would support processing without the relevant explicit report; it would not automatically establish the content or extent of subjective experience. Conversely, accurate spontaneous identification is strong evidence of reportable awareness in that task, but it does not imply exhaustive representation of the scene.

Research Limitations and Open Questions

First-exposure effects and reproducibility

Because the central stimulus must be unexpected, repeated critical trials often change the very phenomenon being measured. Experiments can replicate a paradigm across participants and settings, but individual repeated measurements are harder to interpret. Comparisons require consistency in the primary task, stimulus, question wording, visual quality, and previous exposure to similar demonstrations. Claims about “the percentage who are blind” should always specify the sample and experimental conditions.

What does a missed report reveal?

An absent spontaneous report could reflect incomplete selection, inadequate identification, short-lived awareness, weak encoding, or the demands of retrieving and verbalizing an event. Different accounts can predict similar behavioral outcomes. Independent measures of interference, recognition, gaze, and physiological response can narrow the possibilities while introducing their own assumptions. This is one reason researchers distinguish explicit noticing from implicit effects on performance. Simons (2000).

Laboratory control and real-world generalization

A laboratory video permits precise control of timing, instructions, and stimuli. Real environments include motion of the observer, complex goals, changing hazards, consequences, and feedback. Applied experiments in simulated driving and professional search broaden the evidence base, but neither completely represents all real-world conditions. Strong transfer claims require direct testing in the target context. Strayer et al. (2003); Drew et al. (2013).

Competing explanations of attention and awareness

Attentional-set accounts, resource-competition accounts, and expectation-based accounts emphasize different causal factors. They may describe complementary aspects of one task rather than mutually exclusive explanations. Current experiments show that efficient feature selection and semantic relevance influence noticing, but a general model still must account for multiple modalities, settings, time scales, and definitions of awareness. Recent work on task-efficient attentional sets and semantic expectations provides discriminating evidence rather than a final single-process solution. Liu et al. (2023); Chu and Davies (2024).

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is inattentional blindness called blindness if the eyes work?

The term describes a failure of conscious noticing when a stimulus is visible and attention is devoted elsewhere. It identifies a cognitive-perceptual phenomenon, not an eye disease. The researcher must still establish that the stimulus could reasonably have been seen under the conditions of the experiment.

Does everyone experience inattentional blindness?

The phenomenon has been demonstrated across many experimental samples and tasks, but the probability of missing an object depends on the particular stimulus, instructions, and context. A person who notices one unexpected event can miss another. A single trial cannot determine a permanent personal susceptibility. Simons et al. (2024).

Is the invisible gorilla experiment real?

Yes. Simons and Chabris published the sustained inattentional-blindness study in the peer-reviewed journal Perception in 1999. Later studies used other dynamic scenes and specialist tasks, extending the phenomenon beyond the famous video. Simons and Chabris (1999); Drew et al. (2013).

Can an object be directly in front of you and go unnoticed?

Yes. In eye-tracking experiments with radiologists, some observers fixated the region containing a large unexpected figure and still failed to report it. Visual fixation and conscious identification are distinct outcomes. This observation does not mean that the brain registered nothing at all about the object. Drew et al. (2013).

Does inattentional blindness mean someone has ADHD?

No. Inattentional blindness is a finding from experimental perception and attention research. ADHD is a clinical neurodevelopmental diagnosis based on a much broader assessment of persistent symptoms and impairment. A missed unexpected object is neither a diagnostic criterion nor a validated standalone ADHD screening result.

Is inattentional blindness the same as a short attention span?

No. Duration of sustained attention and unexpected-event noticing describe different research questions. A person may concentrate successfully for the required interval yet fail to notice a task-irrelevant object. The 2024 review of individual differences further cautions against treating one inattentional-blindness event as a general cognitive ability score. Simons et al. (2024).

Can you train yourself never to miss unexpected objects?

Evidence does not support a universal guarantee. Expecting a specific event makes it easier to search for that event, but then it is no longer unexpected in the original experimental sense. Improvements on rehearsed tasks do not automatically demonstrate real-world transfer to unfamiliar hazards.

Related Articles

For neighboring questions on cognitive processing, consult Sensory Memory: Iconic, Echoic, and Haptic Memory for the distinction between fleeting sensory representations and later reports; Everyday Forgetfulness: Why We Misplace Things and Forget Names for encoding and retrieval differences; and Attention in the Age of AI: Focus, Cognitive Load, and Algorithmic Competition for a separately owned digital-attention topic. The parent scientific overview is the Attention, Perception & Cognitive Control research cluster.

Visual Attention: How We Select Locations, Objects, and Features — Explains visual selection, object-based attention, and spatial and feature attention.

Spatial Attention: The Spotlight of Attention and Cueing Effects — Explains overt and covert spatial orienting and Posner-style cueing experiments.

References

Chu, S., & Davies, A. A. (2024). When the WRENCH turns a few heads: Expectation and semantic relatedness in inattentional blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 123, 103699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2024.103699.

Drew, T., Võ, M. L.-H., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). The invisible gorilla strikes again: Sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1848–1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613479386.

Liu, Z., Griffith, K. R., Davies, M., & Davies, A. A. (2023). Inattentional blindness: Attentional set for efficient task success. Consciousness and Cognition, 108, 103456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103456.

Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3707.001.0001.

Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E. R., & Simons, D. J. (2005). What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychological Review, 112(1), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.217.

Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01455-8.

Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059.

Simons, D. J., Hults, C. M., & Ding, Y. (2024). Individual differences in inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31, 1471–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02431-x.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.1.23.