I wish I had learned unicycling back when I was jugging a lot more, but I fear it's too late for me - my balance isn't what it used to be.
27.02.2026 17:12
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
I wish I had learned unicycling back when I was jugging a lot more, but I fear it's too late for me - my balance isn't what it used to be.
I didn't manage to mention that one, but did mention the money money tree and the psychology research sidewalk placard. Really disappointed that you weren't the one on the unicycle :-(.
The paper cites some of the marketing hype, so that might count as one form of "popularization." There are papers by Dan Hurley (journalist) touting brain training, and plenty of blog posts from people associated with the brain training companies making unsubstantiated claims.
Does that mean you allocate two class meetings for each exam? Do you have to scale back on content then?
My time as Editor of AMPPS is coming to an end-- here are some parting thoughts. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.... .
“The articles in AMPPS offer, month in and month out, the invitation to practice aligning your values, intentions, and actions to do less scientific harm and reach for the methodological ceiling”
Grateful to @dsbarra.bsky.social for continuing what @profsimons.bsky.social & co started at AMPPS!
That is a really large implicit effect, especially given the lack of much evidence for semantic priming… but I haven’t read the paper yet.
There are other ways of inducing change blindness of that sort. E.g. the ducking behind a counter version. Yes, the nature of giving directions varies by setting. Different task in Ithaca and Boston.
It's possible. That person change does show an ingroup-outgroup effect, so maybe there would be cultural differences in that sort of connection. I imagine the context (e.g., a person change in a bar) would drive it more than East/West diffs. That's my guess, anyway.
Doubt it, but could be wrong. People are always doing *some* task. If the change is unexpected, it seems unlikely that whatever "task" people are doing will happen to differ by culture in ways that affect change detection. Might differ for deliberate detection tasks because strategies might vary
Here are the DOIs for the handful of ADHD ones we turned up in our preliminary, non-systematic search:
10.1177/1087054711433294
10.1016/j.ridd.2015.12.002
10.4992/pacjpa.73.0_1AM031
doi.org/10.3389/fpsy...
We likely missed some. I haven't read any of these closely yet.
My lab has started a change blindness lit review this semester. Our preliminary search (not systematic) turned up a few papers on ADHD (DOIs in next reply), I haven't examined them for quality. We're starting a systematic review on change/inattentional blindness and autism first.
Will do. The Stage 2 RR is ready to submit now but will be submitted next week (after OSF finishes updating to their new interface). I'll send the meta-analytic review paper and the cultural diffs paper.
But we don't find cultural differences in intentional change detection tasks either: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
I wouldn't expect cultural differences for IB (we haven't found those either). I think the same would be true for unexpected changes like the "door." I suspect that individual differences in other cognitive ability measures *are* associated with performance on intentional change detection tasks.
Hi folks. For inattentional blindness, individual differences are limited at best. We did a meta-analytic review and found little or no association with working memory measures, etc. We're about to submit a stage-2 RR also showing little evidence of individual differences in IB.
I don't think I have one. Somewhere in my lab I have an old videotape from Dick Neisser. If I can find it, I'll have it digitized professionally. I don't think the Neisser & Becklen (1975) videos were, though. Maybe @irahyman.bsky.social has that one? Happy to post other variants to my channel.
The original Neisser selective looking video is now posted. The description has lots of details: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g7a...
@irahyman.bsky.social - if you have some of the other variants, I'd can post them. too. I don't have them handy right now.
@bwyble.bsky.social
I'll try go get that done in the next couple of days if I can.
I used to have it up there. Not sure why I don't any more. For a while, I was handling requests for it for Dick's children, but I haven't needed to do that for a while. I'd be happy to repost it if you think that would be best for visibility.
Invitation to a potential replication project. rolfzwaan.substack.com/p/memory-mis...
I'm teaching my grad version of the course again this fall. I haven't started working on the syllabus yet, though. It's my first time teaching it in the LLM era, so that'll be a new challenge. I'd love to see what you're putting together!
Hmm. That's not me :-). might be the other Daniel J. Simons (at Pittsburgh?)
My editorial on how journals can earn trust.
We often use journal names as proxies for quality. This is bad bc it’s not valid. But it could be. Editors could make journal name a valid signal. And we could place value on journals that show us how they do that.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
Call for nominations! I know many great people who would do a wonderful job in this position. I also probably don't know many great people who would do a wonderful job as well-- help spread the word! Happy to answer questions about EiC at AMPPS with @psychscience.bsky.social . tinyurl.com/ykpzvp7e
This looks like a fantastic resource
(I also don't review for them for the same reasons)
It used to be a decent journal. Years ago I submitted what I felt was good work and it underwent rigorous review. Haven't gone there for years due to the increasingly iffy approach to review.
"Coyne’s blogs were verbose and erratic, often veering into personal attacks. He freely fabricated conspiracies and leveled baseless accusations that obscured whatever legitimate critiques he might have had."
@fovea-vs.bsky.social is on Bluesky now! Follow FoVea to learn more about ways we can advance the visibility, impact, and success of women in vision science!