Literature DB >> 22493942

Colour and spatial cueing in low-prevalence visual search.

Nicholas C C Russell1, Melina A Kunar.   

Abstract

In visual search, 30-40% of targets with a prevalence rate of 2% are missed, compared to 7% of targets with a prevalence rate of 50% (Wolfe, Horowitz, & Kenner, 2005). This "low-prevalence" (LP) effect is thought to occur as participants are making motor errors, changing their response criteria, and/or quitting their search too soon. We investigate whether colour and spatial cues, known to improve visual search when the target has a high prevalence (HP), benefit search when the target is rare. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that although knowledge of the target's colour reduces miss errors overall, it does not eliminate the LP effect as more targets were missed at LP than at HP. Furthermore, detection of a rare target is significantly impaired if it appears in an unexpected colour-more so than if the prevalence of the target is high (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that, if a rare target is exogenously cued, target detection is improved but still impaired relative to high-prevalence conditions. Furthermore, if the cue is absent or invalid, the percentage of missed targets increases. Participants were given the option to correct motor errors in all three experiments, which reduced but did not eliminate the LP effect. The results suggest that although valid colour and spatial cues improve target detection, participants still miss more targets at LP than at HP. Furthermore, invalid cues at LP are very costly in terms of miss errors. We discuss our findings in relation to current theories and applications of LP search.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22493942     DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.656662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  8 in total

1.  Salience-Driven Value Construction for Adaptive Choice under Risk.

Authors:  Mehran Spitmaan; Emily Chu; Alireza Soltani
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Is there a safety-net effect with computer-aided detection?

Authors:  Ethan Du-Crow; Susan M Astley; Johan Hulleman
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-12-26

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

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

4.  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

5.  Visual search errors are persistent in a laboratory analog of the incidental finding problem.

Authors:  Makaela S Nartker; Abla Alaoui-Soce; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2020-07-29

6.  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

7.  The optimal use of computer aided detection to find low prevalence cancers.

Authors:  Melina A Kunar
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2022-02-04

8.  Detection measures for visual inspection of X-ray images of passenger baggage.

Authors:  Yanik Sterchi; Nicole Hättenschwiler; Adrian Schwaninger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 2.199

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.