Looked but didn't see: inattentional blindness and yes-bias confabulation in vision-language models
Raymond, J. D.; Hu, P.; Solomon, B. D.; Duong, D.
Show abstract
Previous work showed that many participants fail to notice a gorilla in a video of people playing basketball. Another study found that 83% of trained radiologists failed to report a gorilla figure inserted into a chest CT nodule-search task, even though eye-tracking revealed that most observers had foveated the figure. We ask whether a similar phenomenon exists in contemporary vision-language models (VLMs). We find that (i) VLMs are capable of spotting the gorilla in both still-frame images and videos of lung CT scans; (ii) models display inattentional blindness, which varies according to model generation and type of stimulus presented; (iii) Gemini-3.1-Pro outperforms most other flagship and open-weight VLMs at identifying the presence or absence of the gorilla. We additionally ran a segmentation experiment utilizing two different model classes: a generalist (SAM 3), which found the gorilla but produced little to no results for anatomy-based prompts; a medical specialist (BiomedParse), which produced more promising anatomy-based results but flagged "gorilla" on gorilla-free control videos on 82% of frames. The behavioral signature of inattentional blindness reproduces in VLMs, but a unique confabulation failure mode means that any "did the model see X" claim requires signal-detection analysis with a matched-control false-alarm baseline.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The relationship between confidence and gaze-at-nothing oculomotor dynamics during decision-making 94%
- Comparing the impact of contextual associations and statistical regularities in visual search and attention orienting 92%
- Improvement in auditory spatial discrimination from ambiguous visual stimuli is not explained by ideal observer causal inference 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.