Literature DB >> 20350044

Generalized "satisfaction of search": adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy.

Mathias S Fleck1, Ehsan Samei, Stephen R Mitroff.   

Abstract

The successful detection of a target in a radiological search can reduce the detectability of a second target, a phenomenon termed satisfaction of search (SOS). Given the potential consequences, here we investigate the generality of SOS with the goal of simultaneously informing radiology, cognitive psychology, and nonmedical searches such as airport luggage screening. Ten experiments utilizing nonmedical searches and untrained searchers suggest that SOS is affected by a diverse array of factors, including (1) the relative frequency of different target types, (2) external pressures (reward and time), and (3) expectations about the number of targets present. Collectively, these experiments indicate that SOS arises when searchers have a biased expectation about the low likelihood of specific targets or events, and when they are under pressure to perform efficiently. This first demonstration of SOS outside of radiology implicates a general heuristic applicable to many kinds of searches. In an example like airport luggage screening, the current data suggest that the detection of an easy-to-spot target (e.g., a water bottle) might reduce detection of a hard-to-spot target (e.g., a box cutter).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20350044      PMCID: PMC3653986          DOI: 10.1037/a0018629

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl        ISSN: 1076-898X


  30 in total

1.  Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception.

Authors:  W J TUDDENHAM
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1962-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Specific-token effects in screening tasks: possible implications for aviation security.

Authors:  J David Smith; Joshua S Redford; David A Washburn; Lauren A Taglialatela
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Age and automation interact to influence performance of a simulated luggage screening task.

Authors:  Douglas Wiegmann; Jason S McCarley; Arthur F Kramer; Christopher D Wickens
Journal:  Aviat Space Environ Med       Date:  2006-08

4.  Memory processes in multiple-target visual search.

Authors:  Christof Körner; Iain D Gilchrist
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2006-09-22

5.  Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search.

Authors:  Mathias S Fleck; Stephen R Mitroff
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-11

6.  Visual search is not blind to emotion.

Authors:  Cory Gerritsen; Alexandra Frischen; Adam Blake; Daniel Smilek; John D Eastwood
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2008-08

7.  The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity.

Authors:  Tamaryn Menneer; Kyle R Cave; Nick Donnelly
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2009-06

8.  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

9.  Visual search has no memory.

Authors:  T S Horowitz; J M Wolfe
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-08-06       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed.

Authors:  Michael J Van Wert; Todd S Horowitz; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.199

View more
  23 in total

1.  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

2.  When do I quit? The search termination problem in visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Nebr Symp Motiv       Date:  2012

3.  Analog Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) information can be more effective than binary marks.

Authors:  Corbin A Cunningham; Trafton Drew; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  The effect of expert knowledge on medical search: medical experts have specialized abilities for detecting serious lesions.

Authors:  Ryoichi Nakashima; Chisaki Watanabe; Eriko Maeda; Takeharu Yoshikawa; Izuru Matsuda; Soichiro Miki; Kazuhiko Yokosawa
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-10-01

Review 5.  Concurrent Vascular Lesions during Renal Angiography: A Potential Distractor.

Authors:  Senthil Gunasekaran; Christopher Goettl; James T Bui; Charles E Ray
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays.

Authors:  Cary Stothart; Andrew Clement; James R Brockmole
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

7.  Visual search in breast imaging.

Authors:  Ziba Gandomkar; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Monkeying around with the gorillas in our midst: familiarity with an inattentional-blindness task does not improve the detection of unexpected events.

Authors:  Daniel J Simons
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2010-07-12

9.  Visual search of experts in medical image reading: the effect of training, target prevalence, and expert knowledge.

Authors:  Ryoichi Nakashima; Kazufumi Kobayashi; Eriko Maeda; Takeharu Yoshikawa; Kazuhiko Yokosawa
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-04-05

10.  Investigation of Biases and Compensatory Strategies Using a Probabilistic Variant of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.

Authors:  Alexis B Craig; Matthew E Phillips; Andrew Zaldivar; Rajan Bhattacharyya; Jeffrey L Krichmar
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-01-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.