CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Visual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Normal blindness: when we look but fail to see

Open access
Wolfe, Jeremy M., Kosovicheva, Anna, Wolfe, Benjamin·2022·Trends in Cognitive Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.006PMC PMC9378609
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Humans routinely miss important information that is 'right in front of our eyes', from overlooking typos in a paper to failing to see a cyclist in an intersection. Recent studies on these 'Looked But Failed To See' (LBFTS) errors point to a common mechanism underlying these failures, whether the missed item was an unexpected gorilla, the clearly defined target of a visual search, or that simple typo. We argue that normal blindness is the by-product of the limited-capacity prediction engine that is our visual system. The processes that evolved to allow us to move through the world with ease are virtually guaranteed to cause us to miss some significant stimuli, especially in important tasks like driving and medical image perception.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.006

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Complex objects can only be identified within the useful field of view, roughly 2.5° centered on the fovea.

    “Complex objects can only be identified within the useful field of view , which is roughly 2.5 ° centered on the fovea [9 , 19] , equivalent to a 4.4 cm width when looking at a screen 1 m away.”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    In “We can’t fully process everything” (page unavailable), the paper defines the useful field of view as the region around fixation within which a target can be identified. It says the field’s size varies with the target and viewing conditions; it does not give a fixed width of roughly 2.5° or specifically limit the statement to complex objects. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The human brain's processing of sensory information and decision-making did not evolve to detect lesions flawlessly during standard endoscopy conditions.

    “The human brain's processing of sensory information and human decision-making did not evolve to detect lesions flawlessly during standard endoscopy conditions [9] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract says that evolved visual processes are virtually guaranteed to miss some significant stimuli, including in medical image perception. The section “Missing the designated target” also describes decision processes that can lead to missed findings. The paper does not address lesion detection during standard endoscopy, so that setting-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Guided search is more vulnerable to vigilance decrements and attentional lapses with increasing time on task, number of simultaneous tasks, and operator's mental and physical fatigue.

    “Guided search is also more vulnerable to vigilance decrements and attentional lapses, which tend to occur with increasing time on task, the number of simultaneous tasks, and the operator's mental and physical fatigue [9 , 13-18] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    In “When we miss what’s right in front of our eyes” (page unavailable), the paper identifies vigilance failures as one possible explanation for proofreading misses. Its unifying-model section also discusses tasks with simultaneous targets. It does not say guided search is more vulnerable than other forms of search, or link its lapses to increasing time on task or mental and physical fatigue. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 108

  1. [1]Simons DJ and Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28, 1059– 1074. 10694957
  2. [2]Wolfe JM (2020) Visual Search: How do we find what we are looking for? Annual Review of Vision Science 6, 539– 562. PMC13537705 32320631
  3. [3]Mack A and Rock I (1998) Inattentional Blindness, MIT Press.
  4. [4]Simons DJ (2000) Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (4), 147– 155. 10740279
  5. [5]Rensink RA (2000) Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing. Vision Res 40 (10–12), 1469– 1487. 10788653
  6. [6]Tuddenham WJ (1962) Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception. Radiology 78, 694– 704. 13923013
  7. [7]Nodine CF (1992) Satisfaction of search (SOS). Invest Radiol 27 (7), 571– 3. 1644560
  8. [8]Berbaum KS (2010) Satisfaction of search in traditional radiographic imaging. In The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques (Krupinski EA and Samei E eds), pp. 107– 138, Cambridge U Press.
  9. [10]Warm J (2014) Vigilance: A Perceptual Challenge In The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research (Hoffman Robert R., P.A.H., Parasuraman Raja, Szalma James L., Scerbo Mark W. ed).
  10. [11]Thomson DR (2015) A Resource-Control Account of Sustained Attention: Evidence From Mind-Wandering and Vigilance Paradigms. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 (1), 82– 96. 25910383
  11. [12]McCarley JS and Yamani Y (2021) Psychometric Curves Reveal Three Mechanisms of Vigilance Decrement. Psychological Science 32 (10), 1675– 1683 34543100
  12. [13]Chun MM and Wolfe JM (1996) Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology 30, 39– 78. 8635311
  13. [14]Schwarz W and Miller JO (2016) GSDT: An Integrative Model of Visual Search J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance 42 (10), 1654– 1675. 27336631
  14. [15]Hills BL (1980) Vision, Visibility, and Perception in Driving. Perception (London) 9 (2), 183– 216. 7375327
  15. [16]Simons DJ and Mitroff SR (2001) The Role of Expectations in Change Detection and Attentional Capture. In Vision and Attention (Jenkin M and Harris L eds), pp. 189– 207, Springer New York.
  16. [17]Moore CL (2021) Incidental Findings: A Survey of Radiologists and Emergency Physicians. Journal of the American College of Radiology 18 (6), 853– 856. 33516766
  17. [18]Beigelman-Aubry C (2007) Management of an incidentally discovered pulmonary nodule. European Radiology 17 (2), 449– 466. 17021707
  18. [19]Wu CC (2012) Incidental pulmonary nodules detected on abdominal computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36 (6), 641– 5. 23192199
  19. [20]Drew T (2013) The Invisible Gorilla Strikes Again: Sustained Inattentional Blindness in Expert Observers. Psychological Science 24 (9), 1848– 1853. 23863753 PMC3964612
  20. [21]Williams L (2021) The invisible breast cancer: Experience does not protect against inattentional blindness to clinically relevant findings in radiology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28 (2), 503– 511. 33140228 PMC8068567
  21. [22]Gascho D (2014) The invisible gorilla! can’t see the wood for the trees. Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging
  22. [23]Clabaux N (2012) Motorcyclists’ speed and “looked-but-failed-to-see” accidents. Accident analysis and prevention 49, 73– 77. 23036384
  23. [24]Herslund M-B and Jørgensen NO (2003) Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35 (6), 885– 891. 12971922
  24. [25]Langham M (2002) An analysis of ‘looked but failed to see’ accidents involving parked police vehicles. Ergonomics 45 (3), 167– 185. 11964202
  25. [26]Berlin L (2007) Radiologic Errors and Malpractice: A Blurry Distinction. American Journal of Roentgenology 189 (3), 517– 522. 17715094
  26. [27]Nodine CF (2001) Blinded review of retrospectively visible unreported breast cancers: an eye-position analysis. Radiology 221 (1), 122– 9. 11568329
  27. [29]Schlett CL (2021) Incidental findings in whole-body MR imaging of a population-based cohort study: Frequency, management and psychosocial consequences. European Journal of Radiology 134. 33279799
  28. [30]Ball KK (1988) Age and visual search: expanding the useful field of view. J. Optical Society of America - A 5 (12), 2210– 2219. 3230491
  29. [31]Sanders AF (1970) Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics 13 (1), 101– 117. 5416864
  30. [32]Whitney D and Levi DM (2011) Visual crowding: a fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15 (4), 160– 168. 21420894 PMC3070834
  31. [33]Hulleman J and Olivers CNL (2017) The impending demise of the item in visual search. Behav Brain Sci 1– 20. 26673054
  32. [34]Andersen GJ (2011) Limits of spatial attention in three-dimensional space and dual-task driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43 (1), 381– 390. 21094336 PMC2991164
  33. [35]Wolfe B (2017) More than the Useful Field: Considering peripheral vision in driving. Applied Ergonomics 65, 316– 325. 28802451
  34. [36]Ward R (1996) The slow time-course of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology 30 (1), 79– 109. 8660782
  35. [37]Wolfe JM (2000) Attention is fast but volition is slow. Nature 406, 691. 10963584
  36. [38]Liesefeld H and Mueller HJ (2020) A theoretical attempt to revive the serial/parallel-search dichotomy. Atten Percept Psychophys 82, 228– 245. 31321649
  37. [39]Wu CC and Wolfe JM (2022) The Functional Visual Field(s) in simple visual search. Vision Res 190, 107965. 34775158 PMC8976560
  38. [40]Wolfe JM (2021) Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psych Bulletin & Review 28, 1060– 1092. PMC8965574 33547630
  39. [41]Young AH and Hulleman J (2013) Eye Movements Reveal how Task Difficulty Moulds Visual Search. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 39 (1), 168– 190. 22642215
  40. [42]Wolfe JM (2003) Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search. Trends Cogn Sci 7 (2), 70– 76. 12584025
  41. [43]Moran R (2013) Competitive Guided Search: Meeting the challenge of benchmark RT distributions. J of Vision 13 (8), pii: 24. 23887047
  42. [44]Ratcliff R (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psych. Review 85 (2), 59– 108.
  43. [45]Hawkins GE and Heathcote A (2021) Racing against the clock: Evidence-based versus time-based decisions. Psychol Rev 128 (2), 222– 263. 33600202
  44. [47]Wolfe JM (2017) How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a ‘model system’ for incidental finding errors in radiology. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (CRPI) 2 (1), #35. PMC5569644 28890920
  45. [48]Vickery TJ (2005) Setting up the target template in visual search. J Vis 5 (1), 81– 92. 15831069
  46. [49]IBSEN C (1972) FICTIVE KIN TERM USE AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS - ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS. JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 34 (4), 615– 620.
  47. [51]Heitz RP (2014) The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience 8 (150). PMC4052662 24966810
  48. [52]Horowitz TS (2017) Prevalence in Visual Search: From the Clinic to the Lab and Back Again. Japanese Psychological Research 59 (2), 65– 108.
  49. [53]Mitroff SR and Biggs AT (2014) The Ultra-Rare Item Effect: Exceedingly rare items are highly susceptible to search errors. Psychological Science 25 (1), 284– 289. 24270463
  50. [54]Wolfe JM (2013) Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision 13 (3:33), 1– 9. PMC3848386 24297778
  51. [55]Evans KK (2013) If You Don’t Find It Often, You Often Don’t Find It: Why Some Cancers Are Missed in Breast Cancer Screening.. PLoS ONE 8(5): e64366. 8 (5), e64366. 23737980 PMC3667799
  52. [56]Wolfe JM and VanWert MJ (2010) Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable decision criteria in visual search.. Curr Biol 20 (2), 121– 124. 20079642 PMC2818748
  53. [57]Potter MC and Faulconer BA (1975) Time to understand pictures and words. Nature 253, 437– 438. 1110787
  54. [58]Oliva A and Torralba A (2001) Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal of Computer Vision 42 (3), 145– 175.
  55. [59]O’Regan K (1992) Solving the ‘real’ mysteries of visual perception. The world as an outside memory. Canadian J. of Psychology 46, 461– 488. 1486554
  56. [60]Ariely D (2001) Seeing Sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science 12 (2), 157– 162. 11340926
  57. [61]Chong SC and Treisman A (2003) Representation of statistical properties. Vision Res 43 (4), 393– 404. 12535996
  58. [62]Alvarez GA (2011) Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 15 (3), 122– 31. 21292539
  59. [63]Rosenholtz R (2020) Demystifying visual awareness: Peripheral encoding plus limited decision complexity resolve the paradox of rich visual experience and curious perceptual failures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 82 (3), 901– 925. PMC7303063 31970709
  60. [64]Wittmann M (2011) Moments in Time. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 5 (66). PMC3196211 22022310
  61. [65]Holcombe AO (2009) Seeing slow and seeing fast: two limits on perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (5), 216– 221. 19386535
  62. [66]Vo ML (2016) You think you know where you looked? You better look again. J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance 42 (10), 1477– 1481. PMC5079107 27668308
  63. [67]Schuchard RA (1995) Adaptation to macular scotomas in persons with low vision. Am J Occup Ther 49 (9), 870– 6. 8572045
  64. [68]Ramachandran VS (1992) Blind spots. Sci Am 266 (5), 86– 91. 1566041
  65. [69]Helmholtz H.v. (1924) Treatise on Physiological Optics, Trans. from 3rd German ed. of 1909, edn., The Optical Society of America
  66. [70]Hohwy J (2008) Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review. Cognition 108 (3), 687– 701. 18649876
  67. [72]Friston K (2009) The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? Trends Cogn Sci 13 (7), 293– 301. 19559644
  68. [73]Najemnik J and Geisler WS (2005) Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search. Nature 434 (7031), 387– 391. 15772663
  69. [74]Carrasco M (1995) The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception and Psychophysics 57 (8), 1241– 1261. 8539099
  70. [75]Wolfe JM and Horowitz TS (2017) Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 0058. PMC9879335 36711068
  71. [76]Egeth HE (1984) Searching for conjunctively defined targets. J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance 10, 32– 39. 6242762
  72. [77]Most SB (2005) What you see is what you set: sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychol Rev 112 (1), 217– 42. 15631594
  73. [78]Most SB (2001) How not to be seen: the contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychol Sci 12 (1), 9– 17. 11294235
  74. [79]Simons DJ and Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28 (9), 1059– 1074. 10694957
  75. [80]Kuhn G (2008) Towards a Science of Magic. Trends Cogn Sci 12 (9), 349– 354. 18693130
  76. [81]Kuhn G (2009) You look where I look! Effect of gaze cues on overt and covert attention in misdirection. Visual Cognition 17 (6), 925– 944.
  77. [83]Nam JG (2020) Undetected Lung Cancer at Posteroanterior Chest Radiography: Potential Role of a Deep Learning–based Detection Algorithm. Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging 2 (6), e190222. 33778635 PMC7977930
  78. [84]McKinney SM (2020) International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577 (7788), 89– 94. 31894144
  79. [85]Theeuwes J (2021) Self-explaining roads: What does visual cognition tell us about designing safer roads? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 6 (1), 15. 33661408 PMC8030273
  80. [86]Theeuwes J and Godthelp H (1995) Self-explaining roads. Safety Science 19 (2), 217– 225.
  81. [87]Hills TT (2006) Animal Foraging and the Evolution of Goal-Directed Cognition. Cognitive Science 30, 3– 41. 21702807
  82. [88]Burg A (1971) Vision and Driving: A Report on Research. Human Factors 13 (1), 79– 87. 5100517
  83. [89]Gibson JJ and Crooks LE (1938) A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. The American Journal of Psychology 51, 453– 471.
  84. [90]Crundall D (2012) Why do car drivers fail to give way to motorcycles at t-junctions? Accident Analysis & Prevention 44 (1), 88– 96. 22062341
  85. [91]Kaya N (2021) Hey, watch where you’re going! An on-road study of driver scanning failures towards pedestrians and cyclists. Accident Analysis & Prevention 162, 106380. 34560508
  86. [92]Beanland V (2014) Safety in numbers: Target prevalence affects the detection of vehicles during simulated driving. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 76 (3), 805– 813. 24464593
  87. [93]Jacobsen PL (2015) Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention 21 (4), 271– 275. 26203162
  88. [94]Strayer DL and Cooper JM (2015) Driven to Distraction. Human Factors 57 (8), 1343– 1347. 26534853
  89. [95]White CB and Caird JK (2010) The blind date: The effects of change blindness, passenger conversation and gender on looked-but-failed-to-see (LBFTS) errors. Accident analysis and prevention 42 (6), 1822– 1830. 20728633
  90. [96]Crundall D (2012) Some hazards are more attractive than others: Drivers of varying experience respond differently to different types of hazard. Accident; analysis and prevention 45, 600– 609. 22269547
  91. [97]Wolfe B (2017) More than the Useful Field: Considering peripheral vision in driving. Applied ergonomics 65, 316– 325. 28802451
  92. [98]Wolfe B (2020) Toward a Theory of Visual Information Acquisition in Driving. Human factors 137, 18720820939693. PMC9136385 32678682
  93. [99]Robbins CJ (2019) The ‘Saw but Forgot’ error: A role for short-term memory failures in understanding junction crashes? PLOS ONE 14 (9), e0222905. 31545850 PMC6756521
  94. [101]See JE (1995) Meta-analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. Psychological Bulletin 117 (2), 230– 249.
  95. [102]Thomson DR (2016) A critical examination of the evidence for sensitivity loss in modern vigilance tasks. Psychol Rev 123 (1), 70– 83. 26524154
  96. [104]Wolfe JM (2007) Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 136 (4), 623– 638. 17999575 PMC2662480
  97. [105]Kunar MA (2010) Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Visual Cognition 18 (6), 881– 897. 21442052 PMC3064483
  98. [106]Lau JS and Huang L (2010) The prevalence effect is determined by past experience, not future prospects. Vision Res 50 (15), 1469– 74. 20438744
  99. [107]Reed WM (2011) The Effect of Abnormality-Prevalence Expectation on Expert Observer Performance and Visual Search. Radiology 258 (3), 938– 943. 21248231
  100. [108]Taylor E (2022) Eliminating the Low Prevalence Effect in Visual Search with a Remarkably Simple Strategy. Psych Science 33(5), 716– 724. PMC13038082 35385335
  101. [109]Wolfe JM and Van Wert MJ (2010) Varying Target Prevalence Reveals Two Dissociable Decision Criteria in Visual Search. Curr Biol 20 (2), 121– 124. 20079642 PMC2818748
  102. [110]Trueblood JS (2021) Disentangling prevalence induced biases in medical image decision-making. Cognition 212, 104713. 33819847
  103. [111]Ahmadi N (2022) Improving the tactical scanning of student pilots: A gaze-based training intervention for transition from visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions. Applied Ergonomics 100, 103642. 34871832
  104. [112]Ashraf H (2018) Eye-tracking technology in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Teacher 40 (1), 62– 69. 29172823
  105. [114]Brem RF (2003) Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial. American Journal of Roentgenology 181 (3), 687– 693. 12933460
  106. [116]Manchon JB (2021) From manual to automated driving: how does trust evolve? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 22 (5), 528– 554.
  107. [117]Bachmann MM (2015) Exploring and Addressing Functional Map Illiteracy in Community College Students. Papers in applied geography 1 (3), 258– 261.
  108. [118]Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica 19 (6), 775– 779.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolfe, J. M., Kosovicheva, A., & Wolfe, B.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Wolfe, Jeremy M.
ORCID
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
26
Issue
9
Pages
809-819
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.006
PMC
PMC9378609
OpenAlex
W4286508571
Cited by
51
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NSF
  • National Institutes of Health
  • NEI (EY017001)
  • NCI (CA207490)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
visual attention, visual search, attentional capture, driving, medical image perception
MeSH terms
Attention, Automobile Driving, Blindness, Humans, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review