What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
41 Comments
- benshariff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+58I get really distracted when I see a beautiful girl on the street and I know she is not wearing a bra. My mind goes haywire in desperation to know what's underneath.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53benshariff:
My guess would be boobs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37Especially when someone randomly starts talking on their bluetooth headset. Then you think they are talking to themselves, and it kinda scares you for a couple of minutes.
- bobmagoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34so apparently digg has become the new locker room
- benshariff, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37@Tekee, I want so badly to live in that world...
@axel2k
Yes but...
Are they perky?
Do they flop?
To her knees do they drop?
Is it pink?
is it brown?
are they spread?
are they round?
Are they soft?
Are they hard?
Eraser nips,mound?
Are they real?
Are they fake?
Do they jiggle when they shake? - TekeeTakShak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30You know, benshariff, you could just go up to her and ask her. ;)
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Use a Somebody Else's Problem field!
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22not quite related but I remembered that one of the explanation why people talking on the cell are annoying (even if they don't talk loud) is because you don't see the other party.
- Darthmalt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Hey bobmagoo you must be new here welcome.
- asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Magic mushrooms remove the filters your brain normally has for external stimuli, and let me tell you. What you're missing is EXTREMELY distracting.
With magic mushrooms, you can sit in the bathroom and be overwhelmed for hours. You'll see sounds you don't normally hear and you will notice every little shine, texture, detail on everything. - ozid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14If you can tell the girl isn't wearing a bra, most of the time you can tell what type of boobs they are. If it's a tight fitting shirt its harder, but a keen eye can always tell. And a keen mouth can always find out for sure. ;)
- mistarojaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11i wonder how this applies to listening to music while studying?
- TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This sort of research would be useful for constructing spy/stealth craft. Maybe UFOs are right out in the open, our subconscious just decides it is unimportant.
- HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So that's why the dead pixel on my screen is so annoying.
- radicaldementia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's pretty fascinating to realize that there's this whole other part of your brain that's going crazy processing input and you're not even aware of it.
- cyroxos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5asdfasdf:
Indeed, psilocybin will also mess with your brain's smart-rendering ability and when there is NO input, it will create strange and incoherent input. - MarSara9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've done something similar to this. The difference was that I was to respond when I saw any change in motion of varying objects. Sometimes the just being a slight vibration or flicker on the screen. I was told to look and stair only at the set of cross-hairs in the middle of the screen. This was more of a test to see how I processed information that I was not directly looking at or was focusing on.
I could tell though that I was continuously trying to scan the screen for any changes, and I had a very hard time keeping my eyes focused at the center. And until the motion stopped I had a very hard time switching my focus back to that of scanning the screen.
This may have no relevance to this what-so-ever, but you never know. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article writer doesn't make it clear as to if and when he means "visible to the brain, tracked but hidden from you", "visible to the brain, but not tracked and hidden from you", and "consciously visible".
- RAMPART36, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6something similar to this happened to me and i couldnt really describe it. but anyways, im from the states and i was visiting vancouver, b.c. up north and i couldnt explain it directly but the city was just different visually. there wasnt anything outright i could point too really, but i could just tell it wasnt an american city, and i concluded that it was a combination of millions of little things that i couldnt really pick out, but as a whole when i looked at the city my brain could just detect it. wierd, but cool to know that im not crazy. heh!
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2At first I thought I got the gist of it, but then as I was rereading it to better explain it to you, the article seemed to be trying to say two different things because the article writer didn't understand what he had read either. The linked blurb, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5806/1786?etoc is vague because they want you to buy the report, so that doesn't help much either.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok wait, let me get this straight.
So if I am looking straight ahead, and there are dots moving (or other stimuli) in the area where I cannot really "see" but if I moved my eyes left or right I would be able to see that distracts me more than if something was moving with-in my "straight ahead" field of vision? And this only works if the motion of the dots is incoherent? Am I correct in understanding this? - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My initial understanding was that if it's moving at random, it's "hidden", if it's moving in a way such that it triggers tracking, but is not pertinent to the task at hand, it's "filtered", otherwise it's "conscious", and that one would think that "filtered" (tracked) is a generally weaker stimulus than "conscious" (the character being read), but that that assumption is wrong.
After rereading several times, I now find that to be the likely conclusion of the study, but the article appears poorly written to me now, and I think that the primary cause of that poor writing was that the author didn't understand the research paper he read. - ThePhilomath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"i wonder how this applies to listening to music while studying? "
I believe that research has shown that it degrades your performance, despite many people thinking that it helps them study. - Chinzon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It took my brain about four times as long as normal to process that article because of the distracting ads at the side of the page. How fitting.
- dralezero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If someone comes into my room and sits down even out of my view I find it very distracting when I'm trying to play a game or watch a movie. Especially when my dad likes to stop and watch the movie I'm watching and stand there for 5mins. Or maybe it's because they are annoying because it doesn't bother me if it is a friend. Of course I expect friends to be there not a random person butting and making themselves at home.
- asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It does create VERY confusing stimuli when none is around, but normal stimuli itself becomes heavily exaggerated.
A bright light? You can't focus on anything else.
Colors? They're so vibrant that you're just sitting there in awe. Especially in nature, you feel like you're Adam or Eve, viewing life for the first time. Understanding that over generations, your senses have been dulled down to only allow input which helps you survive.
Sounds, physical pain, etc. Your body is hardwired to help you do nothing more than survive and reproduce. A trip is great once in a while, to really get aware of your surroundings. - cracell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1only way that would work with video would be instant streaming (no buffer) with all parts fully rendered but only sending the focal point and the rest as blur, but people's focal points change while watching tv/video drastically over the course of the playing. So you'd have to instantly adjust.......this is an obvious conclusion...what the hell is wrong with them
- foolonthehill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You couldn't compress a video file, but for games and 3D applications you could theoretically make better use of the bandwidth and processing power of your graphics card by only rendering the relevant part of the screen to the highest quality. Before rendering each frame, the system could check where the eyes were looking, render that part at huge detail and the rest of the scene at low detail/resolution. This depends mostly on how much of a graphics card's work is unique to each frame, and how much is performed over a longer period and applies across multiple frames. As soon as you try to optimise work that takes place over a noticeable timescale, knowing the position of the user's eyes stops being of any use.
- ThePhilomath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's why my major's psychology :)
The cognitive and physiological sides of psychology are particularly interesting (this study is a cognitive study). - egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This reminds me of an experiment done at the MIT Media Lab a long time ago (must be pre-google). The subject had an eye tracking device installed that tracked where they were looking on a screen. A display was developed that was blurry except where the subject was looking. The subject said they were able to see the entire screen clearly.
The hope was that it could be used as a way to compress video. Keep it at a low resolution except where the person was looking. - jakv5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This one's even better:
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html
Observation test:
Complete task one before reading task wo.
Task one: Pay close attention to the scene and count the number of times the White team passes the basketball. Task two: Now watch the video again and casually watch both teams and the overall court. Answer: The number of passes is irellevant if you missed the gorilla in our mist...I told you to pay close attention to the scene. - Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It sounds like they also made the perimeter dots lighter so that they were harder to see. Basically, if you couldn't really see it consciously, it was more distracting -- and even more so if it was moving incoherently.
- TetchyTony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting slant on 'mis-perception' in the psychological expert's comments in the official report on alleged conspiracies surrounding Princess Diana's sad death. Pages 492-493 (of 817!)
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_12_06_diana_report.pdf - rickjames47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1All its saying is that, if there is coherent (not random) motion JUST outside of your field of vision AND the object moving is visible, then your brain will eventually compensate for that and zero out the motion, so that you can ignore it and go on with your work.
However, if the object moving is barely visible OR the movement is random... then your brain can't really come to grips with it and ignore it, so you get distracted.
So basically, if your brain can see and assess movement as non-threatening to you, it can allow you continue what you're doing, but motion that it cannot assess sets off alarm bells ... for good reason. - GoolamB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Three words - Terry Pratchett - Discworld
- MobileFrogge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0only a handful of people have ever described me as a genius (and most of them were morons), so correct me if I'm wrong, but is this article saying that it's hard to see invisible things?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3If I saw a UFO I would definately consider it to be important
- adidax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Maybe it the sight of not invading Iraq, or the healthy glow from national health care?
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4nice poem
female = poetry in motion
dunno - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3***** SEX .....
best moments of my life!!!!!!
girlz
their bodies their personalitys their take on the wurld
keep it up you girlz you - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2i do ido idoido diodioidoidodiodidodidoidoidoido ido dio ido
that makes sense
***** sex...:-)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is