The illusion of absence: how a common feature of magic shows can explain a class of road accidents

Fooling System 1 in the field of perception: Failure to intuitively detect attribute substitution in the flushtration count illusion

To facilitate our interactions with the surroundings, the human brain sometimes reshapes the situations that it faces to simplify them. This phenomenon has been widely studied in the context of reasoning, especially through the attribute substitution error. It has however been given much less attention in the field of perception. Recent research on the bat-and-ball problem suggests that reasoners are able to intuitively detect attribute substitution errors. Using a perceptual illusion drawn from the field of magic, we investigate the extent to which a perceptual form of attribute substitution depends on executive resources and can be detected. We also investigate the relationship between susceptibility to attribute substitution error in the flushtration count illusion and in a French adaptation of the bat-and-ball problem. Finally, we investigate the link between the intuitive cognitive style (assessed by the cognitive reflection test) and the susceptibility to the flushtration count illusion. Our results suggest that participants do not detect perceptual attribute substitution error, that this phenomenon could be independent of the executive resources allocated to the task, and could rest on mechanisms distinct from those that produce errors in reasoning. We discuss differences between these two phenomena, and factors that may explain them.

Model-Based Prediction of Operation Consequences When Driving a Car to Compensate for a Partially Restricted Visual Field by A-Pillars

The partial restriction of a driver's visual field by the physical structure of the car (e.g., the A-pillar) can lead to unsafe situations where steering performance is degraded. Drivers require both environmental information and visual feedback regarding operation consequences. When driving with a partially restricted visual field, and thus restricted visual feedback, drivers may predict operation consequences using a previously acquired internal model of a car. To investigate this hypothesis, we conducted a tracking and driving task in which visual information was restricted to varying degrees. In the tracking task, participants tracked a moving target on a computer screen with visible and invisible cursors. In the driving task, they drove a real car with or without the ability to see the distant parts of a visual field. Consequently, we found that the decrease in tracking performance induced by visual feedback restriction predicted the decrease in steering smoothness induced by visual field restriction, suggesting that model-based prediction was used in both tasks. These findings indicate that laboratory-based task performance can be used to identify drivers with low model-based prediction ability whose driving behavior is less optimal in restricted vision scenarios, even before they obtain a driver's license. However, further studies are required to examine the underlying neural mechanisms and to establish the generalizability of these findings to more realistic settings.