Literature DB >> 25023956

The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search.

Hayward J Godwin1, Tamaryn Menneer, Kyle R Cave, Michael Thaibsyah, Nick Donnelly.   

Abstract

The proportion of trials on which a target is presented (referred to as the target prevalence) during visual search influences the probability that the target will be detected. As prevalence increases, participants become biased toward reporting that the target is present. This bias results in an increase in detection rates for the target, coupled with an increased likelihood of making a false alarm. Previous work has demonstrated that, as prevalence increases, participants spend an increasing period of time searching on target-absent trials. The goal of the present study was to determine the information processing during the additional time spent searching on target-absent trials as prevalence increased. We recorded participants' eye movement behavior as they were engaged in low-prevalence (25% target-present trials), medium-prevalence (50%), or high-prevalence (75%) search. Increased prevalence primarily influenced search by increasing the time spent examining objects in the display, rather than by increasing the proportion of objects examined in each display. In addition, the additional time spent examining objects in high-prevalence target-absent trials was the result of revisiting objects. We discuss the implications of these results in relation to current models of search as well as ongoing efforts to alleviate the prevalence effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25023956     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0686-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  18 in total

1.  Saccadic eye movements and cognition.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search.

Authors:  Tamaryn Menneer; Nick Donnelly; Hayward J Godwin; Kyle R Cave
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2010-06

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.  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

5.  Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?

Authors:  M M Chun; J M Wolfe
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on expert observer performance and visual search.

Authors:  Warren M Reed; John T Ryan; Mark F McEntee; Michael G Evanoff; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Evan M Palmer; Todd S Horowitz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Determinants of dwell time in visual search: similarity or perceptual difficulty?

Authors:  Stefanie I Becker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 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.  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 3.  Avoiding potential pitfalls in visual search and eye-movement experiments: A tutorial review.

Authors:  Hayward J Godwin; Michael C Hout; Katrín J Alexdóttir; Stephen C Walenchok; Anthony S Barnhart
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Searching for flavor labels in food products: the influence of color-flavor congruence and association strength.

Authors:  Carlos Velasco; Xiaoang Wan; Klemens Knoeferle; Xi Zhou; Alejandro Salgado-Montejo; Charles Spence
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-03-27

5.  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

Review 6.  Using Eye Movements to Understand how Security Screeners Search for Threats in X-Ray Baggage.

Authors:  Nick Donnelly; Alex Muhl-Richardson; Hayward J Godwin; Kyle R Cave
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04

7.  The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices.

Authors:  Bethany Growns; James D Dunn; Rebecca K Helm; Alice Towler; Jeff Kukucka
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.