Literature DB >> 17999575

Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.

Jeremy M Wolfe1, Todd S Horowitz, Michael J Van Wert, Naomi M Kenner, Skyler S Place, Nour Kibbi.   

Abstract

In visual search tasks, observers look for targets in displays containing distractors. Likelihood that targets will be missed varies with target prevalence, the frequency with which targets are presented across trials. Miss error rates are much higher at low target prevalence (1%-2%) than at high prevalence (50%). Unfortunately, low prevalence is characteristic of important search tasks such as airport security and medical screening where miss errors are dangerous. A series of experiments show this prevalence effect is very robust. In signal detection terms, the prevalence effect can be explained as a criterion shift and not a change in sensitivity. Several efforts to induce observers to adopt a better criterion fail. However, a regime of brief retraining periods with high prevalence and full feedback allows observers to hold a good criterion during periods of low prevalence with no feedback. 2007 APA

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17999575      PMCID: PMC2662480          DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  29 in total

1.  A continuous performance test of brain damage.

Authors:  L H BECK; E D BRANSOME; A F MIRSKY; H E ROSVOLD; I SARASON
Journal:  J Consult Psychol       Date:  1956-10

2.  Satisfaction of search (SOS)

Authors:  C F Nodine; E A Krupinski; H L Kundel; L Toto; G T Herman
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?

Authors:  M M Chun; J M Wolfe
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: a model for error rates in visual search.

Authors:  B Zenger; M Fahle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Pixel independence: measuring spatial interactions on a CRT display.

Authors:  D G Pelli
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  T K Egglin; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-12-04       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Small cell and 'pale' dyskaryosis.

Authors:  P A Smith; L S Turnbull
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.073

8.  A theory of criterion setting: an alternative to the attention band and response ratio hypotheses in magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching.

Authors:  M Treisman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1984-09

9.  Uncertainty about spatial frequency, spatial position, or contrast of visual patterns.

Authors:  E T Davis; P Kramer; N Graham
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1983-01

10.  Mechanism of satisfaction of search: eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs.

Authors:  S Samuel; H L Kundel; C F Nodine; L C Toto
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  82 in total

1.  Rare targets are less susceptible to attention capture once detection has begun.

Authors:  Nicholas Hon; Gavin Ng; Gerald Chan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-04

2.  Accuracy is in the eyes of the pathologist: The visual interpretive process and diagnostic accuracy with digital whole slide images.

Authors:  Tad T Brunyé; Ezgi Mercan; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Adaptation and visual search in mammographic images.

Authors:  Elysse Kompaniez-Dunigan; Craig K Abbey; John M Boone; Michael A Webster
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times.

Authors:  Kazuya Ishibashi; Shinichi Kita; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Spotting rare items makes the brain "blink" harder: Evidence from pupillometry.

Authors:  Megan H Papesh; Juan D Guevara Pinto
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Practice makes improvement: how adults with autism out-perform others in a naturalistic visual search task.

Authors:  Cleotilde Gonzalez; Jolie M Martin; Nancy J Minshew; Marlene Behrmann
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2013-10

7.  Assessing the effect of a true-positive recall case in screening mammography: does perceptual priming alter radiologists' performance?

Authors:  S J Lewis; C R Mello-Thoms; P C Brennan; W Lee; A Tan; M F McEntee; M Evanoff; M Pietrzyk; W M Reed
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Stephen C Walenchok; Stephen D Goldinger; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect.

Authors:  Anina N Rich; Melina A Kunar; Michael J Van Wert; Barbara Hidalgo-Sotelo; Todd S Horowitz; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  When is it time to move to the next map? Optimal foraging in guided visual search.

Authors:  Krista A Ehinger; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.