The Library

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

Tools

Kunar, Melina A., Rich, Anina N. and Wolfe, Jeremy M.. (2010) Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Visual Cognition, Vol.18 (No.6). pp. 881-897. ISSN 1350-6285

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506280903361988

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 behaviour of the searcher. It can lead participants to quit their search prematurely (Wolfe, Horowitz, & Kenner, 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 low prevalence (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 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.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology

Divisions:

Faculty of Science > Psychology

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Searching behavior, Visual perception, Attention, Airline passenger security screening, Space and time

Journal or Publication Title:

Visual Cognition

Publisher:

Taylor & Francis

ISSN:

1350-6285

Official Date:

2010

Dates:

Date	Event
2010	Published

Volume:

Vol.18

Number:

No.6

Number of Pages:

Page Range:

pp. 881-897

Identification Number:

10.1080/13506280903361988

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Restricted or Subscription Access

Funder:

National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIH), United States. Dept. of Homeland Security, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Menzies Foundation, University of Warwick

Grant number:

EY17001 (NIH), 359244 (NHMRC/MF)

References:

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 443�446.
Fenton, J. J., Taplin, S. H., Carney, P. A., Abraham, L., Sickles, E. A., D’Orsi, C., et al. (2007).
Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. New
England Journal of Medicine, 356(14), 1399�1409.
Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search.
Psychological Science, 18, 943�947.
Forlines, C., & Balakrishnan, R. (2009). Improving visual search with image segmentation. In
Proceedings of the 27th ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vols. 1�4,
pp. 1093�1102), April 2009.
Healy, A. F., & Kubory, M. (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative
decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 7, 344�354.
Hogg, R. V., & Craig, A. T. (1995). Introduction to mathematical statistics (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., & Marks, L. E. (2002). Visual marking: Selective attention to
asynchronous temporal groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 28, 717�750.
Maddox, W. T. (2002). Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual
categorization. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 567�595.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers
into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437�442.
Posner, M., Snyder, C., & Davidson, B. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160�174.
Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., van Wert, M., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T., & Wolfe, J. M.
(2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect.
Journal of Vision, 8(15), 1�17.
Treisman, M. (1984). A theory of criterion setting: An alternative to the attention band and
response ratio hypotheses in magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 443�463.
Van Wert, M. J., Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types
of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 71(3),
541�553.
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual
searches. Nature, 435(7041), 439�440.
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007).
Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 623�638.
Wolfe, J. M., & van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable
decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121�124.