The preregistration is available [here.][1] In [Experiment 1][2], we found only a slight difference in the noticing rates between the condition in which the unexpected object was visible for 5 seconds, and the condition in which it was visible for 2.67 seconds. This suggests than if someone is to notice the unexpected object, they will do so early on. There appears to be little, if any, benefit to having more exposure time to the unexpected object. The results from the direct report of the location data are broadly consistent with the noticing data. Subjects who noticed the unexpected object tended to report its location near the point where it onset, whereas non-noticing subjects' reports closely resembled the reports from subjects who did not receive an unexpected object at all. In Experiment 2, we will replicate and extend the findings in Experiment 1. We will add an additional, shorter exposure time of 1.5 seconds in order to try to put an upper bound on how early noticing occurs, in addition to the 2.67 and 5 second conditions from Experiment 1. We will also shift the portion of the display the unexpected object traverses, so that it is flush with an edge of the display rather than centered around fixation. This will allow us to both examine the impact of the onset location on noticing, and provide a stricter test of the location report data. The displacement of the unexpected object's trajectory and very narrow span in some conditions should reveal whether subjects have systematic biases or other inaccuracies in their reports. [1]: https://osf.io/mh592 [2]: https://osf.io/yekzc/