Literature DB >> 21442052

Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search.

Melina A Kunar1, Anina N Rich, Jeremy M Wolfe.   

Abstract

Recent research has shown that, in visual search, participants can miss 30-40% of targets when they only appear rarely (i.e. on 1-2% of trials). Low target prevalence alters the behavior of the searcher. It can lead participants to quit their search prematurely (Wolfe et al., 2005), to shift their decision criteria (Wolfe et al., 2007) and/or to make motor or response errors (Fleck & Mitroff, 2007). In this paper we examine whether the LP Effect can be ameliorated if we split the search set in two, spreading the task out over space and/or time. Observers searched for the letter "T" among "L"s. In Experiment 1, the left or right half of the display was presented to the participants before the second half. In Experiment 2, items were spatially intermixed but half of the items were presented first, followed by the second half. Experiment 3 followed the methods of Experiment 2 but allowed observers to correct perceived errors. All three experiments produced robust low prevalence (LP) effects with higher errors at 2% prevalence than at 50% prevalence. Dividing up the display had no beneficial effect on errors. The opportunity to correct errors reduced but did not eliminate the LP effect. Low prevalence continues to elevate errors even when observers are forced to slow down and permitted to correct errors.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21442052      PMCID: PMC3064483          DOI: 10.1080/13506280903361988

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis cogn        ISSN: 1350-6285


  14 in total

1.  Visual marking: selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups.

Authors:  Yuhong Jiang; Marvin M Chun; Lawrence E Marks
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.332

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

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Todd S Horowitz; Michael J Van Wert; Naomi M Kenner; Skyler S Place; Nour Kibbi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2007-11

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

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

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

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

6.  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

7.  Attention and the detection of signals.

Authors:  M I Posner; C R Snyder; B J Davidson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1980-06

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

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Michael J Van Wert
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 10.834

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
  12 in total

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

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

Review 2.  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

3.  Unequal allocation of overt and covert attention in Multiple Object Tracking.

Authors:  Veronica Hadjipanayi; Andria Shimi; Casimir J H Ludwig; Christopher Kent
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 2.157

4.  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

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

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

6.  The influence of attention on value integration.

Authors:  Melina A Kunar; Derrick G Watson; Konstantinos Tsetsos; Nick Chater
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Individual differences predict low prevalence visual search performance.

Authors:  Chad Peltier; Mark W Becker
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-01-30

8.  Comparing Breast Screening Protocols: Inserting Catch Trials Does Not Improve Sensitivity over Double Screening.

Authors:  Weijia Chen; Piers D L Howe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  It is not good to talk: conversation has a fixed interference cost on attention regardless of difficulty.

Authors:  Melina A Kunar; Louise Cole; Angeline Cox; Jessica Ocampo
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-08-22

10.  Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance.

Authors:  Chad Peltier; Mark W Becker
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-11-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.