1. Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon Julie Witherup Angela French Amanda Caddell Kevin Utt

2. Introduction Moray (1959) Cocktail Party Phenomenon Can select to listen to information from one source in a busy environment But can pick up “relevant” information from unattended sources

3. Introduction (cont.) Neisser and Becklen (1975) Selective “looking” People watch game and count passes Miss person walking through middle

4. Research Idea The person in Neisser and Becklen could be considered an unattended channel So if the person is made relevant, should not the person be easier to detect?

5. Hypothesis In a Neisser and Becklen type video, participants will detect and identify a visually relevant person more often than a less visually relevant person

6. Method Participants 26 students 25 Caucasian 1 Japanese 31% freshman 23% sophomores 23% juniors 23% seniors

7. Equipment Video production Digital Camcorder: Sony digital handycam, model number DCR-TRV17 Video edited by: QuickTime Pro by Apple Computers, Inc. Apparatus Video presented on: Gateway computer model # E-3400 Windows 98 QuickTime version 6.5 Screen size 15” diagonal

8. Stimuli – 2 videos Recording Filmed in same room to ensure identical background – camera remained in same position via tripod Filmed in one session, but three separate stages Three stages Game in black T-shirt Game in white T-Shirt First person filmed walking across camera field of view, then the second person

9. Stimuli (cont.) Production--3 video clips superimposed Resulting 2 Videos Personally relevant person Less personally relevant person Video 1Video 2 Clip 1White Clip 2Black Clip 3; Clip 4KnownUnknown

10. Procedure Randomly assigned Condition 1: Relevant Person Condition 2: Less Relevant Person Video Questionnaire How many bounce passes? Demographics Questions relevant to condition Relevant—“How often do you eat in the UG?” (Likert Scale) Less Relevant—“How often do you go to the Career Center?” (Likert Scale) Did you see someone walk through the players? If so, who was it?

11. Results Chi Square Analyses Comparing the frequency of whether participants detected a person walking across the screen in each condition YesNoTotal Relevant 8 61.5% 5 38.5% 13 Less Relevant 5 38.5% 8 61.5% 13 Total 13 26  ² (1) = 1.39, ns

12. Chi Square Analyses Comparing the frequency of whether participants identified the person walking across the screen in each condition RelevantOtherNo OneTotal Relevant4 30.8% 1 7.7% 8 61.5% 13 Less Relevant 0013 100% 13 Total412126  ² (2) = 6.19, p <.05

13. Discussion No significant relationship on the number of times the person was detected However, relevance did seem to influence the number of times the person was correctly identified Even when seen, there were no attempts at identifying the less relevant person

14. Limitations Personally relevant individual may not have been equally relevant to all participants Personally relevant and less relevant individuals may have looked too much alike The two people’s paths were not identical Counterbalancing of the perceptual task

15. Future Directions Use a person that is truly significant to each individual for the relevant condition e.g., athletic coach

16. References Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56-60 Neisser, U. & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480-494