cognitive psych !?

a compilation of outputs for psych 148 by gale. click the star for my re/cognition entries or click the clip for my (un)essay entries! (2021.)

[psychologale]

re/cognition (4).

for this re/cognition post, i decided to dive into there is no game, a not-game created by KaMiZoTo. 

mechanics.

i don’t think the game had any blatant mechanics at all. upon starting the game, the player is immediately primed with the contradictory labels and images on the screen: a loading bar with the label “not loading”, the x cursor, as well as the title implicitly inform us that the narrator of the story (perhaps the creator? a character?) is lying to us. we, then, naturally come to the conclusion that there is a game, and that the game will come in a form of a puzzle as we attempt to figure out the narrator’s schemes.

priming occurs as we are exposed to details that may affect our future behavior. for example, i wouldn’t suspect the narrator’s intentions of “not having a game” if i weren’t presented with obvious examples of how the program lies to the player. 

what makes it fun?

the game is essentially a collection of puzzles and mini-games, all of which are simple in nature but are heightened because of the amazing writing involved in the dialogue. the game master is an interesting character that breaks the fourth wall and acts as if the player is talking to him. (it reminded me a lot of another game called the stanley parable, which has a lot of interactions between the narrator and the player.)

the one-sided interaction not only gives clues and sparks the player into engaging with the different items on the screen, but it also keeps them interested enough to keep going because of the sharpness and wit of the script.   ⠀ 

the narrator, too, comes around in the end. it seems as if he is running from glitches, and that he needs your help to get rid of them. from that point on, you two are working together: you solving the puzzles, and him giving you hints for you to be able to make decisions and solve the problems.

problem-solving.

problem-solving seemed to be the most salient concept that popped out to me as i was playing the game. it’s pretty cool how we can figure puzzles out with subtle hints tossed in from different parts of the game, even when there are no mechanics given and that the problems are hidden within the interface. this game is essentially a collection of ill-defined problems, where the player is left to figure out how to solve things and which details are important in solving the problem. 

gestalt approaches.

i figured out a lot of the mechanisms in the game using the trial-and-error method—clicking randomly across the screen and watching to see if there would be any changes in the scene with every press. while i didn’t do this for every step, it was something that was integral whenever i was stuck at a certain spot—i would click random things as i listened to the hints from the narrator, which eventually made my guesses more spot-on and less random.

i think that the gestalt approaches were really useful to me as i played through the puzzles; reproductive thinking helped me in solving repetitive puzzles such as the [THERE IS A GOAT] puzzle in the photo above and the [THERE IS A TREE] puzzle, as those were solutions that were already utilized earlier in the game [THERE IS A GAME]. productive thinking, on the other hand, was something that i had to use in the ‘newer’ kinds of puzzles, such as the part where i had to give a cracked nut to the flying squirrel on top of the tree.

while playing, i had some ‘aha!’ moments, formally called insight, whenever i figured out how to do things. when i first met the goat in a cage within the game, i really had to think about how i was going to open the lock. i tried smashing it with the heavy box before i realized that one of my games was still left ‘unfinished’. the bouncing ball game! upon breaking the last ball, i was given a key and a trophy, both items that had pretty obvious uses that were confirmed later in the game.

a lot of the problems solved in the puzzles were analytically-based—they could be solved in similar but not identical ways, keeping a huge part of the puzzle in the same vein and allowing me to actually solve them without spending too much time rethinking and rearranging my ideas to get the answers. i think this was done on purpose because puzzles that are too hard aren’t exactly too fun for the general public; we want a challenge, yes, but a balance between difficulty and fun is important to create a compelling puzzle game.

i didn’t really allow much thoughts to be incubated; i was solving puzzles pretty quickly, as the one in the website seems to be only a small part of the actual longer game. 

do i recommend it?

yes, 100%! it was really a fun game to play, both because of the funny, witty banter of the narrator and the simple yet really creative puzzles and mini-games within the game. it’s hard to believe that this was created just with an HTML5 game engine, and it just goes to show how creative people can be even with more simple tools. 

[psychologale]

(un)essay 3.

misconception: eating snacks while studying helps you focus.

what is the misconception about? where did it come from?

to many students today, eating while studying seems to be an indispensable part of the experience. many, including myself, feel as if we are more productive when we do both activities at the same time. this particular belief, if i remember correctly, was introduced to me by a family friend as we talked about how i liked to eat snacks whenever i answered exams (like the UPCAT). "okay lang yan," they said, "'di ba mas madali raw magfocus kapag kumakain?"

i never really bothered to look into this, and i took it under my wing by unconsciously believing it. many friends of mine think the same way, too; not only did snacking on chips or biscuits as they studied helped them "focus", but they also believed that it helped them become more productive as they were reducing downtime by eating while studying. i think that this behavior is something that students (or society, in general) created as a way to adapt to our busy schedules.

the origin of the misconception is unknown. perhaps it was born from anecdotal evidences, passed on from one person to another, or maybe it's a warped piece of advice that stemmed from the scientific fact that food is heavily related to memories and even cognition (food memories, the hippocampus). either way, many people choose to eat food while studying, as they believe that boosts their productivity by saving time and making their studying process more effective.

why is this a misconception?

first of all, i didn't find a single study that revolved around the act of studying while eating random snacks. while there are studies that lauded dark chocolate as a snack that positively affects cognition through flavonoids, as they influence brain and cardiovascular health, the misconception stated is not limited to snacking on chocolate.

eating, in general, is considered as an activity that is unrelated to studying. our brain registers eating and studying as two separate tasks: this makes it apparent that doing these two things at the same time is a form of multitasking.

multitasking is one of the most apparent skills that we have in today's fast-paced society. lots of companies value that skill, and even look for it in their potential employees. many of us believe that by doing two or more things at the same time, we are actually boosting our productivity and making way for more activities to be done by the time we just saved. however, multitasking comes with a cost—whenever we multitask, we actually compromise the quality of the tasks that we attempt to do at the same time as we force the two activities to compete for our very limited resources.

in fact, we often overload our capacity by multitasking; our working memory and our attention are forced to switch from one task to the other, as we are actually unable to do them both at the same time without paying them some mind. we are forcing ourselves to rapidly switch between two tasks continuously, which disrupts cognition, divides attention, and gives our working memory more trouble as it readjusts repeatedly based on the activity we are doing.

eating may seem simple and we may even think that this doesn't require much attention from us as we do most of it unconsciously, but we still lose considerable processing from even small actions. macmahon (2017) tells her readers that this can easily be exhibited by trying a small experiment: try tapping a beat with your non-dominant hand while writing your name with the other. tapping your hand may not seem like a big deal, but it still reduces the quality or speed of your writing.

so, what should we do to study more effectively? what if i get hungry?

if you think that eating (specifically, chewing) on something is helping you block out other sensory distractions, gum is a food that has researched in the field of cognitive psychology. a systematic study that covered 21 papers found a statistically significant relationship between mastication and sustained attention and alertness, which, in turn, improved cognition. it's hands-free and it allows you to chew on something without having you replenish it repeatedly in a short period of time. (it can cause your jaw to ache, though.)

though it is unclear to many psychologists why exactly it is effective (some think that it increases blood flow, others think that it's because it increases physiological arousal, while others speculate that the mechanisms in the brain are related to insulin and glucose), trying it out and seeing if it works for us does little to no harm—as long as you brush your teeth afterwards.

more effective than gum, however, is a healthy balanced diet and eating on time. this is more on nutritional psychiatry, but selhub (2020) notes that our bodies—and especially our brains—require the proper nutrients to function well. providing ourselves with good food at the right intervals improves not only our cognition, but also our physical health and even our mood.

and who doesn't prefer studying when they're in a good mood?

references.

Berk, L., Bruhjell, K., Peters, W., Bastian, P., Lohman, E., Bains, G., Arevalo, J. & Cole, S. (2018). Dark chocolate (70% cacao) effects human gene expression: Cacao regulates cellular immune response, neural signaling, and sensory perception. The FASEB Journal, 32(1), 755.1. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2018.32.1_supplement.755.1

Emamzadeh, A. (2019, May). To chew or not to chew gum (when studying)?. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201905/chew-or-not-chew-gum-when-studying

MacMahon, S. (2017, May). Busting the multitasking myth. NPJ Science of Learning Community. https://npjscilearncommunity.nature.com/posts/16561-busting-the-multitasking-myth

Miquel, S., Haddou, M. B., & Day, J. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of mastication on sustained attention in healthy adults. Physiology & behavior, 202(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.01.003

Selhub, E. (2020, March). Nutritional psychiatry: Your brain on food. Harvard Health Publishing. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/nutritional-psychiatry-your-brain-on-food-201511168626

Smith A. (2009). Effects of chewing gum on mood, learning, memory and performance of an intelligence test. Nutritional neuroscience, 12(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1179/147683009X423247

[psychologale]

(un)essay 2.

humans are irrational and are typically unconscious of the processes behind their cognitions.

while i believe that humans are definitely capable of rationality, i don’t believe that we have the right to define ourselves as rational beings. 

rationality, in itself, is a vague and almost philosophical quality. its meaning also changes depending on the context where it is used; for example, being rational in philosophy usually denotes the use of reason, while being rational in economics means that the individual is acting according to their desires.

a paper by clore (2011) stated that rationality is not a term currently preferred in psychology today, as many psychologists would rather use more objective and less value-laden names for the dual processes of thoughts, such as controlled or automatic processing and systematic or heuristic processing. these names avoid the subjective notion in common usage that depicts rationality as good and irrationality (often attributed to being emotional) as bad. 

rationality, in this unessay’s context, would be described as conscious processing—decisions and actions that are typically controlled, systematic, and rule-based (system 2). it happens when a person does not rely on automaticity or heuristics, and is usually slower than system 1 processing.

we, as humans, have a very limited working memory. we are physically unable to think of everything that we have to do all at once; in fact, i don’t think anyone could ever do it, even if they attempt to do it on purpose. this is because our minds are biased and often make decisions while also considering several other factors that may influence the outcome, even if considering these factors may result in a disadvantage. and we’d probably end up overworking our poor brains.

it’s also important to note that making decisions with shortcuts is not inherently a bad thing. yes, they can be disadvantageous at times, as we may make decisions more hastily than we would otherwise, but that also happens with conscious processing, too. words such as irrational and unconscious may spark negative affect, but automaticity is adaptive. humans always need to think on the fly—from our prehistoric days where snap decisions had to be made in order to be safe from predators, to even today, when you might be thinking of whether or not you should really eat the four-day old sandwich in your fridge instead of making a fresh one. (please make a fresh one.)

kluger (2015) summarizes this pretty well in his time article: 

“we are, like it or not, biological machines, and the simpler we keep things, the less chance there is for a mistake or a breakdown.” 

the mind is tasked to process too many things at the same time—information from all our senses all at once plus the random shower thoughts that pop into your noggin each time you find yourself staring into space. 

this is not to say that people are incapable of deeper thinking without the use of shortcuts. when faced with harder questions that require much thought, we do have the capacity to think more intently about our decisions and our reasoning, to weigh the pros and cons with much more reason than we pay our meal of the day. this can happen when you’re writing a piece that requires you to reflect on your class and what you learned in the said class, or even while you’re thinking about what to write in your tweet about taylor swift’s latest release. 

the entire process may not be conscious, but it is by the combination of both rational and irrational (system 2 and system 1, respectively) that we are able to function well as humans.

additional resources. 

Clore G. L. (2011). Psychology and the Rationality of Emotion. Modern theology, 27(2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2010.01679.x

Kluger, J. (2015, June). Why you’re pretty much unconscious all the time. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/3937351/consciousness-unconsciousness-brain/

[psychologale]

re/cognition (3).

this time, i'm going to be playing 4 pics 1 word, a puzzle game based on pop culture, words, and double meanings that was extremely popular back when i was in high school (2013? 2014? i can't remember the exact year!). to be completely honest, i'm not about to play this game blind—i was practically addicted to this game in its peak, along with a ton of my classmates, but i am hoping that the years i've spent away from this game will allow me to have a fresh perspective on how it works!

mechanics.

the game is pretty straightforward: you're given four photos and you're supposed to look for the word that 'links' all of them together. the connections can be pretty easy, as we can see above (ink), but they can also be confusing if your brain simply refuses to supply you with the perfect word that matches all of the (seemingly unrelated) pictures.

what makes it fun?

apart from the fact that games naturally make you feel good whenever you get things right or win them, puzzle games (personally) make me feel a sense of smugness whenever i figure out the answers. it makes me feel great, as if i’m part of an inner circle that ‘gets’ it, even if the some of the questions are rather easy. i feel accomplishment whenever i figure out some of the more confusing questions (like the one right above this section, it took me a few seconds to realize that the answer was ‘light’).

knowledge.

the biggest realization that i had while playing the game was how efficient our brains really are in sorting concepts into categories. i never really thought of how my mind organized ideas in my head; of course, i was vaguely aware of the fact that things really are sorted (otherwise, how would i be able to form coherent thoughts?), but not to this extent.

as i was finding the answers to these puzzles, the semantic network approach came to mind. the semantic network approach basically posits that knowledge can be seen as linked concepts, connected through their similarities and can even be arranged in an hierarchical manner. this approach is also heavily related to language, as it relies on meanings to create concepts and cluster them into linked groups. 

to better see this, i’ll pull up an example by terashima (2002):

if, for example, a photo of an automobile were put as one of the four images in the puzzle, i would immediately come up with different concepts that are related to it: the body, its handle, its tires, its brake, even its windshield or the fact that it is used to drive. from these concepts alone, i have a general idea of what the word that the puzzle wants from me is.

to further narrow down my choices, i would have to look at the other photos in the bunch. if, for example, a photo of a screwdriver were presented, i would naturally try and input drive or driver, based on the amount of boxes and the available letters. if a photo of a phone was there, however, i would try to write down mobile, as in [mobile phone] or [automobile]. my answer simply depended on which concepts these photos had in common, and if those concepts described with words could be slotted in the puzzle.

language.

obviously, language would be tied in rather heavily with this puzzle game, as it relies on words—it’s literally in the game’s name. semantics seems to be the most important part of the game to me, as well as one’s ability to speak the language used in the game, which is english. one must know the english language as well as know the meanings of the words to be able to answer the puzzles. otherwise, it is not possible to figure anything out.

lexical ambiguity as well as discourse are also pervasive, as it has been shown in the puzzle again and again that words (that are associated to the photos) can have more than one meaning. to illustrate, here is an example: 

the word is ‘kick’, but it has different meanings in the different photos. the ones on the left side both show kick as something that is done with the leg to exert force (karate kick, kicking a soccer ball), but the images on the left side use kick in a different way (sidekick, a kickstand for the bicycle). lexical ambiguity explains this phenomenon by stating that words can have more than one meaning.

discourse, on the other hand, is also important because it adds context to the photos. this is where the added layer of culture (in this case, pop culture) would have its effect. for example: 

the answer for the image above is ‘happy’. discourse is important because without the knowledge that pies are used for happy celebrations and that pharell williams (bottom left) had a hit song called ‘happy’, one may have more trouble with figuring this particular puzzle out.

do i recommend it?

if you have free time and you like flexing your puzzle-solving skills along with your pop culture knowledge + your wide vocabulary, go ahead! there’s a reason why this game was so big back in 2013-14, and it has a free app, anyway. there’s no reason not to try it out if you’re interested. there were definitely times when i was a little surprised by the answers, or times when i couldn’t figure out the words, but don’t worry! there will be free hints there to help you. :) 

[psychologale]

(un)essay 1.

the technology gap is the next big thing in cognitive psychology.

what is the technology gap?

in this unessay, the technology gap will refer to discrepancies in access to and understanding of technology because of a variety of reasons. some factors that may contribute to the technology gap may be one’s economic status, age, or region. also known as the digital divide, it is simply the line that separates groups who benefit from modern technology (usually the internet) from those who do not.

an example of how the technology gap can be seen is how generational gaps have a big effect on how certain demographics interact with new technology (like smartphones, computers). i’m sure that many of us have experienced being called over by an older relative or friend, only to be asked about how they can post a picture, how they can change the channel on the television, or even how they can take a selfie. 

to us, who grew up with this technology, being asked about these simple tasks may be frustrating because doing them is almost instinctive for us. to older generations, however, these activities are unfamiliar and may be hard to remember. 

what cognitive processes or mechanisms can be affected by the technology gap?

‘digital natives’ refers to a demographic that grew up with today’s existing technology with direct access to gadgets that facilitate access to the digital world. the effects of technology to attention (and other aspects of cognition) can be seen most on these digital natives, and a technology gap separates them from those who did not grow up with modern digital technology.

because of the rising influence and relevance of technology in our lives, especially the internet and the smart devices designed to connect to the internet, our ways of perceiving, remembering, understanding, and thinking are changing. while i believe that all cognition is currently being affected by technology and its development (and, in turn, by the technology gap), i would like to focus on three main aspects: attention, memory, and decision-making.

attention.

our attention has been greatly impacted by technology in the past few years. gadgets, as seen and used by individuals today, have both positive and negative effects on our cognition. 

research has been consistent in stating that gadgets such as smartphones and computers increase distraction, taking up valuable cognitive capacity. because of the distraction that these devices offer, it takes significantly more effort to pay attention to one thing (such as studying), and the level of difficulty is directly related to how dependent we are on these devices.

digital natives have also grown up in an environment where everything competes for their attention. as a digital native myself, i have grown to realize that companies have commodified my attention, literally paying money to websites to grab my focus for a few seconds to make me look at their products. when one grows up in an environment where everything is vying for their attention, the brain develops in a different way, encouraging faster and more efficient switching between tasks versus sustained attention. this may mean that digital natives’ working memory can be shorter versus those of non-natives.

however, because digital natives are so used to the attention-grabbing nature of media, they are more accustomed to filtering information. their minds are often quicker to pick up important details in a wall of text, or faster in determining which parts of a website are useless or fake and which parts are actually relevant. 

for example, digital natives are way less likely to fall for the ‘you won a new iphone 12!’ scam advertisements in websites because we’re already so used to seeing them to the point that they don’t grab our attention anymore, and we simply know that they’re fake without having to look closer.

memory.

because of the deadly mix of distractions, shorter attention spans, and shorter working memory, digital natives also suffer from a higher tendency for cognitive overload. this happens when we take in more information than the brain can process and store, which means that we may be able to perceive more data than ever before, but a lot of it tends to go to waste because we can’t take the time to properly understand and remember the said information.

there are also some studies that have found that people today are prone to cognitive offloading, which is the use of physical objects to remember things for us, instead of having to rely solely on our brains. this is an obvious difference between digital natives and non-digital natives; for example, my mother still has important phone numbers from her youth memorized: numbers for their home, her parents’ workplaces, her previous workplaces, and even some of her friends’ numbers. i, however, only have my own phone numbers memorized, and i rely on my phone’s contact list to give me the information i need (therefore, i have offloaded that task to my phone).

decision-making.

all that said, it is also true that digital natives have the potential to process information faster because of their traits. while there is a significant tradeoff (data lost in long-term memory), some technology-immersed groups. like gamers, are able to process data and make decisions faster on average than those who are not. 

the amount of information available today, too, has increased dramatically. in the past, sources were very limited, but they were often from reputable sources (books, newspapers, or news on the radio or tv). today, you can find everything online—however, there is a high risk of consuming incorrect or misleading information. digital natives find determining correct sources easier versus those who are new to the internet, which may allow them to make better-informed decisions compared to digital novices.

the great amount of data and choices, however, can be a double-edged sword. not only is there too much information to consume and fully process, there are also a lot of junk data that need to be sorted out, which takes up a ton of cognitive capacity and energy. 

why will studying the technology gap become important?

studying this phenomena will be the next big thing in cognitive psychology because understanding the new divide between demographics (usually age or region-related demographics) driven by technology will be important in determining how people's mental processes truly work. 

i believe that a lot of research done in the past is quickly becoming obsolete (or at least, outdated) and taking a look at how people who live in the digital age today differ from those who were raised at an older time would allow researchers to fill the gaps between the present and the past, and perhaps theorize things for the future, such as how technology will affect cognitive processes in the long run.

this domain is important because people are dynamic, and to understand people, we need to keep up with the changes in the world and in society. digital natives’ minds are shaped differently as they continue to be exposed to technology, allowing them to process information in a way that is completely different from their novice counterparts. because the world is so technologically-advanced today, it would be good to see how both sides of the coin work: how non-digital natives and digital natives navigate our technological world.

additional resources.

Sousa, D. (2015). How the brain learns mathematics. (2nd ed.). Corwin. Retrieved from http://webéducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/How-the-Brain-Learns-Mathematics-2-edition.pdf

Stenger, M. (2019, January). How digital technology shapes cognitive function. OpenColleges. Retrieved from https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/digital-technology-shapes-cognitive-function/

[psychologale]

re/cognition (1).

welcome to my blog, and to the first post of many! right now, i’m about to play hidden kitchen, a hidden object game reminiscent of i spy books, except completely online.

i’ll be using this blog post to write a ‘live’ reaction as i play the game, with commentary on each section of the game until i reach whatever stage i can reach on the first try. after that, i’ll be sharing some insights that relate to the topics discussed in class. 

wish me luck! :D

level 1/10. 

first off, i didn’t realize that pausing was impossible for this game. after taking this screenshot, i realized that the timer wasn’t pausing. it kept ticking down even when i wasn’t playing, which was a bummer because that meant that i wouldn’t be able to type down all my reactions without compromising my score. so, disclaimer: i definitely lost a lot of precious time because of my photo-taking. :(

level 1 was pretty easy; all the items were simple enough to spot, but your brain can definitely make the process a little confusing. because my brain kept filling in ‘details’, like the sizes of the items or where i would normally find them in a kitchen, my eyes tended to skip over some areas where one of the items would be, just because i subconsciously thought that the item was probably somewhere else, or that the item was too small to be the one i was looking for.

these assumptions are called scene schemas, and they got in the way of my item finding. because i was expecting certain items to be in certain spots (i.e. sauce bottles on countertops or shelves, knife racks on countertops), i had more trouble in trying to find them because they would sometimes be in unexpected areas, and my brain wouldn’t register them as the item i was looking for because they’re not in my (subconsciously) assumed area.

level 2/10.

pretty similar thoughts from level 1, though level 2 seemed to be a little harder because of the colors used in the scene. the white background made it much more difficult for me to spot the white items that needed to be found, and i ended up wasting a few precious seconds for an item (i think it was a basic white cup) that was right there, simply because my mind didn’t recognize its outline due to how fast my eyes scanned over the surface.

level 3/10.

not gonna lie, i was kinda sweating in this one. i was worried about the timer going off, and i was preoccupied with trying to find all the white items that were blending in with the counter and the cabinets. because i was so focused on the countertops, i failed to notice that my last item was in the overhead rack for a few seconds, which wasted a ton of time. i was worried because of the low time bonus at this point.

level 4/10.

this stage wasn’t harder than the previous sets, save for the small items blending in with the other items on the back table, as well as the camouflaged stainless steel item right on the stainless steel sink. moments of fixation allowed me to determine which items were which and if they were one of the items that i needed to find. after confirming, i would go back to scanning different areas to look for different features for the rest of the items. i think i was just pressured by the idea that i had to finish everything before the timer ended, but i ended up completing it, yay! i also got nervous because of the time bonus, which was now at a worrying 395.

level 5/10.

oops. my last level for this run. unfortunately, i wasn’t able to complete the entirety of the game (up to level 10), but at least i made it to the halfway point. it wasn’t extremely hard, but the time limit got to me and the game ended right after i completed the level. :/

final score: 2655.

okay, so it’s not the best score. a part of me wants to defend myself by saying that, hey, i was taking the time to think about my insights + take good screenshots, but that’d just be me making a bunch of excuses, which isn’t exactly a fun thing to read about. i enjoyed the game, actually—i’ve always been fond of i spy-ish games, but i usually like playing them without the added pressure of a time limit. 

insights.

spatial attention and visual scanning were both incredibly important in playing searching games such as hidden kitchen. i believe that i was slow in looking for the objects because oftentimes, i was focused on finding one item at a time, rather than somewhat committing all of the items to memory and clicking them as soon as i saw one of the items, which sounds like i was making use of feature search. however, upon reading more about feature integration theory, i realized that it was a better explanation of how i looked for things.

for example, several kitchen items that i, the player, was tasked to find were of a silver (stainless steel) color. whenever i saw a glint of that very color, overt spatial attention would take over, making me pour all my effort in searching for one of the items in the area where i saw some kind of silver. shapes, too, could also be misleading—there were times when the game would ask you to look for two to three similar items, usually sauce bottles which had small differences (like their lid colors and some minute shape differences). 

i think that the game could do better with making the items blend in more with the rest of the scene to make it more difficult. most of the items that the player was made to find had a thicker black outline, which served as a hint that maybe this item was one of the needed things to complete a specific level, making a thick black outline one of the features that my brain tried to look for while scanning the pictures.