Literature DB >> 20438744

The prevalence effect is determined by past experience, not future prospects.

Jonas Sin-Heng Lau1, Liqiang Huang.   

Abstract

In a laboratory task similar to an X-ray baggage search at an airport, Wolfe, Horowitz, and Kenner (2005) reported a "prevalence effect" (i.e., a very high miss rate) when the presence of a target is very infrequent. The present study tested whether this prevalence effect is the result of a voluntary top-down control for future prospect or an implicit bottom-up priming from past experience. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that, regardless of instructions given on the likelihood of target presence, the magnitude of prevalence (i.e., the miss rate) was determined only by the actual prevalence of the target. In Experiments 3 and 4, target prevalence was indicated by background color on a trial-by-trial basis. Some blocks (i.e., constant blocks) were either comprised of all high-prevalence trials or all low-prevalence trials, whereas in other blocks (i.e., mixed blocks) high-prevalence and low-prevalence trials were randomly mixed. Target prevalence significantly affected the miss rate in the constant blocks, but had no effect in the mixed blocks. Overall, the prevalence effect is essentially the result of past experience and is not affected by future prospect. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20438744     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.04.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  14 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.  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

3.  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

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

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

Review 5.  Normal blindness: when we Look But Fail To See.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Anna Kosovicheva; Benjamin Wolfe
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 24.482

6.  Influence of being videotaped on the prevalence effect during visual search.

Authors:  Yuki Miyazaki
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-06

7.  Probability cueing influences miss rate and decision criterion in visual searches.

Authors:  Kazuya Ishibashi; Shinichi Kita
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2014-08-12

8.  Do prevalence expectations affect patterns of visual search and decision-making in interpreting CT colonography endoluminal videos?

Authors:  Thomas R Fanshawe; Peter Phillips; Andrew Plumb; Emma Helbren; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor; Alastair Gale; Susan Mallett
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Understanding the contribution of target repetition and target expectation to the emergence of the prevalence effect in visual search.

Authors:  Hayward J Godwin; Tamaryn Menneer; Charlotte A Riggs; Dominic Taunton; Kyle R Cave; Nick Donnel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

10.  Detecting Bombs in X-Ray Images of Hold Baggage: 2D Versus 3D Imaging.

Authors:  Nicole Hättenschwiler; Marcia Mendes; Adrian Schwaninger
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.888

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.