Ian Phillips
@ianbphillips.bsky.social
Philosopher of mind and psychology, studying perception, consciousness, imagination, time and memory. BDP in Philosophy, and Psych and Brain Sciences @ Johns Hopkins. Writing a biography of Gareth Evans. ianbphillips.com
and also merely apparent absence...
October 30, 2025 at 4:41 PM
and also merely apparent absence...
RIP Tony Harrison. One of my prized possession, this copy of his wonderful poem, A Kumquat for John Keats. Every time I eat one, I'm reminded of it, and how a full life ought to feel. www.lookingtoleeward.se/tony-harriso...
September 27, 2025 at 8:34 PM
RIP Tony Harrison. One of my prized possession, this copy of his wonderful poem, A Kumquat for John Keats. Every time I eat one, I'm reminded of it, and how a full life ought to feel. www.lookingtoleeward.se/tony-harriso...
Delighted to be the opening chapter of this brilliantly conceived (and beautifully covered!) new interdisciplinary collection on Space, Time, and Memory edited by the wonderful Lynn Nadel and Sara Aronowitz. Even better, the whole thing is free to download here: library.oapen.org/bitstream/ha...
June 10, 2025 at 12:10 PM
Delighted to be the opening chapter of this brilliantly conceived (and beautifully covered!) new interdisciplinary collection on Space, Time, and Memory edited by the wonderful Lynn Nadel and Sara Aronowitz. Even better, the whole thing is free to download here: library.oapen.org/bitstream/ha...
And this result even held when just looking at participants who were *maximally* confident that they hadn’t noticed anything. 11/12
May 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
And this result even held when just looking at participants who were *maximally* confident that they hadn’t noticed anything. 11/12
In Exps 2-5, we used different coloured and shaped stimuli, as well as dynamic displays (closer to the famous gorilla), to probe if participants were better than chance at saying if the stimulus they’d missed was orange or green, circular or triangular. Again, remarkably, the answer was yes! 10/12
May 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
In Exps 2-5, we used different coloured and shaped stimuli, as well as dynamic displays (closer to the famous gorilla), to probe if participants were better than chance at saying if the stimulus they’d missed was orange or green, circular or triangular. Again, remarkably, the answer was yes! 10/12
But could these 'inattentionally blind' participants say whether the line was on the left or the right when we asked them to choose? Yes! Remarkably, participants who said they didn’t notice anything unusual were significantly better than chance at saying where it was! 9/12
May 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
But could these 'inattentionally blind' participants say whether the line was on the left or the right when we asked them to choose? Yes! Remarkably, participants who said they didn’t notice anything unusual were significantly better than chance at saying where it was! 9/12
In Exp. 1, we used a version of Mack and Rock’s classic cross-task paradigm. Participants judge which of two briefly presented cross arms is longer. Then on the 4th trial, an unexpected red line appears on the left or right. We asked: Did you notice anything unusual? Approx. ~30% said ‘no’. 8/12
May 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
In Exp. 1, we used a version of Mack and Rock’s classic cross-task paradigm. Participants judge which of two briefly presented cross arms is longer. Then on the 4th trial, an unexpected red line appears on the left or right. We asked: Did you notice anything unusual? Approx. ~30% said ‘no’. 8/12
This told us participants’ false alarm rate (how often they said ‘yes’ in absent trials). Together with their hit rate (how often they said ‘yes’ in regular trials) and some signal detection theory, this showed that – as predicted -- participants were indeed conservative in reporting noticing! 6/12
May 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
This told us participants’ false alarm rate (how often they said ‘yes’ in absent trials). Together with their hit rate (how often they said ‘yes’ in regular trials) and some signal detection theory, this showed that – as predicted -- participants were indeed conservative in reporting noticing! 6/12
For all these reasons a participant might be *conservative* in reporting their awareness. Remarkably, no-one has tested this. To do so, we tweaked classic IB tasks by adding absent trials where nothing unexpected appeared, but we still asked participants if they noticed anything unusual. 5/12
May 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
For all these reasons a participant might be *conservative* in reporting their awareness. Remarkably, no-one has tested this. To do so, we tweaked classic IB tasks by adding absent trials where nothing unexpected appeared, but we still asked participants if they noticed anything unusual. 5/12