Literature DB >> 20079642

Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search.

Jeremy M Wolfe1, Michael J Van Wert.   

Abstract

Target prevalence powerfully influences visual search behavior. In most visual search experiments, targets appear on at least 50% of trials [1-3]. However, when targets are rare (as in medical or airport screening), observers shift response criteria, leading to elevated miss error rates [4, 5]. Observers also speed target-absent responses and may make more motor errors [6]. This could be a speed/accuracy tradeoff with fast, frequent absent responses producing more miss errors. Disproving this hypothesis, our experiment one shows that very high target prevalence (98%) shifts response criteria in the opposite direction, leading to elevated false alarms in a simulated baggage search. However, the very frequent target-present responses are not speeded. Rather, rare target-absent responses are greatly slowed. In experiment two, prevalence was varied sinusoidally over 1000 trials as observers' accuracy and reaction times (RTs) were measured. Observers' criterion and target-absent RTs tracked prevalence. Sensitivity (d') and target-present RTs did not vary with prevalence [7-9]. These results support a model in which prevalence influences two parameters: a decision criterion governing the series of perceptual decisions about each attended item, and a quitting threshold that governs the timing of target-absent responses. Models in which target prevalence only influences an overall decision criterion are not supported. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20079642      PMCID: PMC2818748          DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  14 in total

Review 1.  Visual search and attention: a signal detection theory approach.

Authors:  P Verghese
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2001-08-30       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 2.  Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization.

Authors:  W Todd Maddox
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  A random-ray model for speed and accuracy in perceptual experiments.

Authors:  Adam Reeves; Nayantara Santhi; Stefano Decaro
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2005

4.  Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Todd S Horowitz; Naomi M Kenner
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-05-26       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision.

Authors:  John Palmer; Alexander C Huk; Michael N Shadlen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-05-02       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  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

7.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation.

Authors:  Scott D Brown; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies.

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

9.  Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  K S Berbaum; E A Franken; D D Dorfman; S A Rooholamini; M H Kathol; T J Barloon; F M Behlke; Y Sato; C H Lu; G Y el-Khoury
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 6.016

10.  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
View more
  74 in total

1.  Suboptimal decision criteria are predicted by subjectively weighted probabilities and rewards.

Authors:  John F Ackermann; Michael S Landy
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  LIP activity in the interstimulus interval of a change detection task biases the behavioral response.

Authors:  Fabrice Arcizet; Koorosh Mirpour; Daniel J Foster; Caroline J Charpentier; James W Bisley
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  Serial vs. parallel models of attention in visual search: accounting for benchmark RT-distributions.

Authors:  Rani Moran; Michael Zehetleitner; Heinrich René Liesefeld; Hermann J Müller; Marius Usher
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

4.  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

5.  Neural bases of individual variation in decision time.

Authors:  Sien Hu; Yuan-Chi Tseng; Alissa D Winkler; Chiang-Shan R Li
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: trained observers miss rare targets, too.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; David N Brunelli; Joshua Rubinstein; Todd S Horowitz
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  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

Review 10.  HOW DO RADIOLOGISTS USE THE HUMAN SEARCH ENGINE?

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Karla K Evans; Trafton Drew; Avigael Aizenman; Emilie Josephs
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 0.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.