Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon

1. Visual Cocktail Party Phenomenon Julie Witherup Amanda Caddell Angie French 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 • Participants will detect a visually relevant person more often than a less visually relevant person in a Neisser and Becklen type video

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 • Recording • All done in same room with camera same position – done in one setting to make sure • Background kept the same in all cases • Three stages • Game in black T-shirt • Game in white T-Shirt • First one then the second person walked across the cameras field of view

9. Stimuli (cont.) • Production--3 video clips superimposed • Resulting 2 Videos • Personally relevant person • Less personally relevant person

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?” • Less Relevant—”How often do you go to the Career Center?” • 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 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 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 identification of the less relevant person

14. Limitations • Counterbalancing of the attention task • Personally relevant individual may not have been equally relevant to all participants • The two people’s paths were not identical

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