Originally Posted by Helmet Head

What about the 50% of the study participants who did not notice a man in a gorilla suit prominently beating his chest in the middle foreground of a short video clip that they were watching of a basketball game in which they were tasked to count the number of times the ball was passed.

Was that a "simple error"? Or did it require a "series of errors" for the study participants to overlook the presence of the highly prominent man in a gorilla suit?

50% did not notice! And when they were told about it, and even reshown the video, half of them insisted that he was not there, and that it was a different video.

Now, in this case the truck should have been perceived as being much more relevant to the driver than the gorilla suit guy was to the participants counting passes in the video clip, and, so, the likelihood of a driver overlooking something like the truck must be much, much smaller. But it's not zero, obviously.