Yes, this seems reasonable, although I don’t recognise the term.
ETA: Following Wikipedia’s links, the stuff here from 8:30 to 10:00 seems most like what I’m thinking of, although still not quite as dramatic as what I remember.
By this point, it’s possible that my memory is just faulty.
I think I saw a demo, or video a demo, about 15 years ago, of the ERICA gaze-tracking program at UVA where onlookers could see the screen change characters while the person whose gaze was being tracked couldn’t see the changes. If I remember correctly, it was a screen of normal text in MS-Word or something that would mutate into gibberish where the user wasn’t watching.
But which you think that you’re looking at, so that at the end you’re surprised by the change. The change-blindness stuff in Dennett’s video that I cited 4 posts up had the same result, although a different method. (Whether that similarity is enough to make DaveX’s stuff also count as “change blindness”, I have no opinion.)
I believe this is just known as change blindness.
Edit: Hm, no, looks like you’re describing something more specific. I still think it falls under change blindness, though...
Yes, this seems reasonable, although I don’t recognise the term.
ETA: Following Wikipedia’s links, the stuff here from 8:30 to 10:00 seems most like what I’m thinking of, although still not quite as dramatic as what I remember.
By this point, it’s possible that my memory is just faulty.
I think I saw a demo, or video a demo, about 15 years ago, of the ERICA gaze-tracking program at UVA where onlookers could see the screen change characters while the person whose gaze was being tracked couldn’t see the changes. If I remember correctly, it was a screen of normal text in MS-Word or something that would mutate into gibberish where the user wasn’t watching.
OK, then somebody else remembers it! (I don’t remember that it was text, but this is close enough.)
Oh, OK, I misunderstood what you were saying. That’s not change blindness, then, that’s just not being able to see things you’re not looking at...
But which you think that you’re looking at, so that at the end you’re surprised by the change. The change-blindness stuff in Dennett’s video that I cited 4 posts up had the same result, although a different method. (Whether that similarity is enough to make DaveX’s stuff also count as “change blindness”, I have no opinion.)