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.

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
Date:	2010
Volume:	Vol.18
Number:	No.6
Number of Pages:	17
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.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/5739

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item