reliability of eye-witness accounts

I think you’re a focused on a point non-relevant to this discussion. You wrote of reasons why eyewitness testimony in the past would not be considered 100% reliable. If you look back at the list I think you’ll agree that the all those conditions go to either verifying a witness’ credibility or ability to perceive the evidence (obstructed view, lighting, etc). Those aren’t to my mind issues of the accuracy of memories.The closest I could come up with that I think supports your claim would be cross-racial identification. That is something that I ‘remember’ as being an issue for longer than the last two decades. At the very least, the phrase, They all look alike predates the last couple of decades.

Ned,I have no data to back this up.Years and years ago, I read or heard that very early childhood memories were questionable. Since then from time to time I have asked people about their earliest memories or pay special attention when people recount these types of memories. Often when telling these tales other family members are very aware or these tales and often chime in and provide additional details.I suspect these are more often then not, stories that have been told to the people as they were growing up. Not only is memory tricky, but suggestion is also very powerful.

Funny, just today I came across this while looking up something totally unrelated to memories.Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access DeniedRandi, as in ‘The Amazing Randi’ talks about memory in an article about eye-witness reports of abductees. Interesting that we’re so quick to dismiss their sworn testimony and so quick to accept other types.

I agree. I don't *know* that it is 1% or focus means the rest is out of focus. It does seem clear that we 'focus', as in actively take in a lesser part of the area we see.I like Randi and find myself often in agreement with him, but he often tosses out comments like that without providing sources.

I agree that humans seem to have a great capacity for tuning out input. I suppose if one considers vertical space then 1% seems reasonable.I would have preferred he had used ‘in focus’ or ‘focal-area’ rather than simply ‘focus’, especially when dealing with a human’s ability to take in information. It just seems to me that he’s using focal-area to argue that humans receive nothing useful outside that area. While I can’t read outside that area, I can often make out shapes and color.

Not disagreeing with you, but I think we’re talking about two different aspects. Consider this:Look at the text on this message board. Now when I place both my focus and my focal-point on a single word, and I don’t’ move my eyes, I find my ability to read the surrounding words limited to an area much smaller than the whole. On average this is just a few words, if even that much, on each side of the word I am currently focused on.Now, I have a baseball cap resting next to my monitor, and even while I can’t make out the logo on the cap, I can tell it is golden and a baseball cap. My point is that I can take in more information of some types than the 1 degree or so on the focal-point.So I’m not disagreeing that a person might fail to note items outside of the focal-point, but obviously at least some of the time items outside of the focal-point are considered. The best examples of this I can think of are changes to lighting at the periphery and moving objects entering one’s field of vision.

I am not currently talking about memory, that memory is an imperfect process is a given for me.All I have been saying is that I believe that there is useful visual information gathered from outside the fully-focused area. I believe some color and farther out light and movement.Edited to clearify.This message has been edited by Trae, 03-21-2005 12:14 AM

quote:

---

This is what is happening: 1 minute ago, you looked at the cap. That cap has been "drawn" inside your head as being over there. You are NOT actually looking at the cap right now - you are looking at an old image of a cap that WAS there a minute ago. It might still be there - but it might not. You won't find that out till your focal zone checks that point and updates your internal representation.

---

If this were always true, how would I be able to process new, previously unknown, objects? I am not saying that objects are always processed outside of the focal zone. I am not even saying that people normally process items outside the focal zone. I am saying that is possible to have some input from objects outside of the focal zone. Isn’t that in part demonstrated by visual periphery tests?

quote:

---

...and you will almost always glance there to see what it is.

---

Almost always? The color question seems to come down to something like, "Is it possible to perceive some/any color/s outside of the fully-focused range?" Yes, the natural inclination is to move one's eyes. So tell me, for those who cannot move their eyes are they completely unable to sense color, or was Ben correct and there are a "few cones here and there" or baring that does the area of cones extend farther out than the fully-focused range?edited to fix quote tags.This message has been edited by Trae, 03-22-2005 11:35 AM

Understood..I wasn’t suggesting that people unable to move their eyes saw color differently. Though I understand your point about update the internal representation . I singled them out since with their heads immobilized they would not be shifting their view.I still suspect that my original limits of the focal area is smaller and within the area you’re considering.edited to add.Trigger Happy TV was just on. While most the participants are simply ignoring the action, occasionally you do see the effect of failure to recognize something right infront of one's face.This message has been edited by Trae, 03-24-2005 03:46 PM

That was along one of my observations earlier. That when I really focus on a single word my ability to see nearby words, without moving my eyes, is very limited. Much more so than I would have thought. I'd say it is roughly a word to either side.