Low Target Prevalence is a Stubborn Source of Errors in Visual Search Tasks

Overview

Journal J Exp Psychol Gen

Specialty Psychology

Date 2007 Nov 15

PMID 17999575

Citations 111

Authors

Jeremy M Wolfe

Todd S Horowitz

Michael J Van Wert

Naomi M Kenner

Skyler S Place

Nour Kibbi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In visual search tasks, observers look for targets in displays containing distractors. Likelihood that targets will be missed varies with target prevalence, the frequency with which targets are presented across trials. Miss error rates are much higher at low target prevalence (1%-2%) than at high prevalence (50%). Unfortunately, low prevalence is characteristic of important search tasks such as airport security and medical screening where miss errors are dangerous. A series of experiments show this prevalence effect is very robust. In signal detection terms, the prevalence effect can be explained as a criterion shift and not a change in sensitivity. Several efforts to induce observers to adopt a better criterion fail. However, a regime of brief retraining periods with high prevalence and full feedback allows observers to hold a good criterion during periods of low prevalence with no feedback.

Citing Articles

A gaze into the void: Anticipatory saccades toward prevented events.

Tonn S, Teigeler J, Pfister R, Gamer M Atten Percept Psychophys. 2025; .

PMID: 40011338 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-025-03019-4.

Effects of blinded and nonblinded sequential human redundancy on inspection effort and inspection outcome in low prevalence visual search.

Cymek D Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):23003.

PMID: 39362903 PMC: 11450219. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-72210-8.

The message matters: changes to binary Computer Aided Detection recommendations affect cancer detection in low prevalence search.

Patterson F, Kunar M Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):59.

PMID: 39218972 PMC: 11366737. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00576-4.

Cue relevance drives early quitting in visual search.

Moher J, Delos Reyes A, Drew T Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):54.

PMID: 39183257 PMC: 11345343. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00587-1.

Greater benefits of deep learning-based computer-aided detection systems for finding small signals in 3D volumetric medical images.

Klein D, Karmakar S, Jonnalagadda A, Abbey C, Eckstein M J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2024; 11(4):045501.

PMID: 38988989 PMC: 11232702. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.11.4.045501.

References

Smith P, Turnbull L . Small cell and 'pale' dyskaryosis. Cytopathology. 1997; 8(1):3-8. View

Smith J, Redford J, Washburn D, Taglialatela L . Specific-token effects in screening tasks: possible implications for aviation security. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006; 31(6):1171-85. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1171. View

Hsieh P, Chu C, Yang Y, Yang Y, Yeh T, Lee I . Norms of performance of sustained attention among a community sample: Continuous Performance Test study. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005; 59(2):170-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2005.01353.x. View

Wolfe J, Horowitz T, Kenner N . Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature. 2005; 435(7041):439-40. PMC: 4224304. DOI: 10.1038/435439a. View

Thornton T, Gilden D . Parallel and serial processes in visual search. Psychol Rev. 2007; 114(1):71-103. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.71. View

Gur D, Rockette H, Armfield D, Blachar A, Bogan J, Brancatelli G . Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology. 2003; 228(1):10-4. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2281020709. View

BECK L, BRANSOME Jr E, MIRSKY A, ROSVOLD H, SARASON I . A continuous performance test of brain damage. J Consult Psychol. 1956; 20(5):343-50. DOI: 10.1037/h0043220. View

Broadbent D, Gregory M . Effects of noise and of signal rate upon vigilance analysed by means of decision theory. Hum Factors. 1965; 7(2):155-62. DOI: 10.1177/001872086500700207. View

NODINE C, Krupinski E, KUNDEL H, Toto L, Herman G . Satisfaction of search (SOS). Invest Radiol. 1992; 27(7):571-3. View

10.

Baldassi S, Verghese P . Comparing integration rules in visual search. J Vis. 2003; 2(8):559-70. DOI: 10.1167/2.8.3. View

11.

Palmer J, Verghese P, Pavel M . The psychophysics of visual search. Vision Res. 2000; 40(10-12):1227-68. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(99)00244-8. View

12.

Smith J, Redford J, Gent L, Washburn D . Visual search and the collapse of categorization. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005; 134(4):443-60. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.443. View

13.

Brainard D . The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):433-6. View

14.

Berbaum K, Franken Jr E, Dorfman D, Caldwell R, Krupinski E . Role of faulty decision making in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. Acad Radiol. 2000; 7(12):1098-106. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(00)80063-x. View

15.

Chun M, Wolfe J . Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?. Cogn Psychol. 1996; 30(1):39-78. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1996.0002. View

16.

Colquhoun W . The effect of 'unwanted' signals on performance in a vigilance task: a reply to Jerison. Ergonomics. 1966; 9(5):417-9. DOI: 10.1080/00140136608964402. View

17.

Samuel S, KUNDEL H, NODINE C, Toto L . Mechanism of satisfaction of search: eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs. Radiology. 1995; 194(3):895-902. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.194.3.7862998. View

18.

Berbaum K, Franken Jr E, Dorfman D, Rooholamini S, Kathol M, Barloon T . Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest Radiol. 1990; 25(2):133-40. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199002000-00006. View

19.

Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum J, Acharyya S . Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(17):1773-83. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911. View

20.

Egglin T, Feinstein A . Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA. 1996; 276(21):1752-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.276.21.1752. View