The Manifestation of Incidental Findings in Different Experimental Visual Search Paradigms

Overview

Journal Psychol Russ

Specialty Psychology

Date 2023 Feb 10

PMID 36761717

Authors

Olga S Rubtsova

Elena S Gorbunova

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Incidental findings are items of visual search that are potentially of significance, but were not the main object of the initial search. They have been previously widely discussed in the field of radiology. However, the underlying perceptual mechanisms of such phenomenon are still unclear.

Objective: The current study aims to examine incidental findings in different paradigms of visual search in order to reveal their primary perceptual aspects.

Design: Two behavioral visual search experiments were conducted. The mixed hybrid search task model was used in the first experiment, while the subsequent search miss effect was employed in the second experiment. The task was to find targets among distractors, according to given instructions. Stimuli material consisted of images of real-life objects that were randomly distributed across the screen for each trial.

Results: Accuracy and reaction time of the participants were analyzed in both experiments. Similar effects were observed for both parameters. Specific targets in the first experiment and typical targets in the second experiment were found significantly faster and more accurately in comparison to categorical and atypical targets. Moreover, this tendency did not depend on the order of target identification. Hence, the prevalence of the targets was revealed to be the primary factor in the case of incidental findings.

Conclusion: The study revealed the emergence of incidental findings in both experiments. Typical or specific targets were detected significantly more accurately, compared to atypical or categorical targets. Subsequent search misses were not detected, suggesting that target prevalence could be a crucial factor that is specific for incidental findings.

References

Beigelman-Aubry C, Hill C, Grenier P . Management of an incidentally discovered pulmonary nodule. Eur Radiol. 2006; 17(2):449-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0399-7. View

Fleck M, Samei E, Mitroff S . Generalized "satisfaction of search": adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2010; 16(1):60-71. PMC: 3653986. DOI: 10.1037/a0018629. View

TUDDENHAM W . Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception. Radiology. 1962; 78:694-704. DOI: 10.1148/78.5.694. View

Adamo S, Cain M, Mitroff S . Self-induced attentional blink: a cause of errors in multiple-target search. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24(12):2569-74. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613497970. View

Adamo S, Cox P, Kravitz D, Mitroff S . How to correctly put the "subsequent" in subsequent search miss errors. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019; 81(8):2648-2657. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-019-01802-8. View

Kristjansson A, Campana G . Where perception meets memory: a review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(1):5-18. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.1.5. View

Duncan J, Humphreys G . Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev. 1989; 96(3):433-58. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.433. View

Maxfield J, Zelinsky G . Searching Through the Hierarchy: How Level of Target Categorization Affects Visual Search. Vis cogn. 2013; 20(10):1153-1163. PMC: 3616399. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2012.735718. View

Wolfe J . Saved by a log: how do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search?. Psychol Sci. 2012; 23(7):698-703. PMC: 3966104. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612443968. View

10.

Biggs A, Adamo S, Dowd E, Mitroff S . Examining perceptual and conceptual set biases in multiple-target visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015; 77(3):844-55. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0822-0. View

11.

Yang H, Zelinsky G . Visual search is guided to categorically-defined targets. Vision Res. 2009; 49(16):2095-103. PMC: 2756560. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.017. View

12.

Gorbunova E . Perceptual similarity in visual search for multiple targets. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2016; 173:46-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.010. View

13.

Kwak H, Dagenbach D, Egeth H . Further evidence for a time-independent shift of the focus of attention. Percept Psychophys. 1991; 49(5):473-80. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212181. View

14.

Hout M, Walenchok S, Goldinger S, Wolfe J . Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015; 41(4):977-94. PMC: 5543182. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000053. View

15.

Wolfe J, Alaoui Soce A, Schill H . How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a 'model system' for incidental finding errors in radiology. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2017; 2(1):35. PMC: 5569644. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-017-0072-5. View

16.

Moraglia G . Display organization and the detection of horizontal line segments. Percept Psychophys. 1989; 45(3):265-72. DOI: 10.3758/bf03210706. View

17.

Berbaum K, Franken Jr E, Dorfman D, Rooholamini S, Coffman C, CORNELL S . Time course of satisfaction of search. Invest Radiol. 1991; 26(7):640-8. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199107000-00003. View

18.

Chetverikov A, Upravitelev P . Online versus offline: The Web as a medium for response time data collection. Behav Res Methods. 2015; 48(3):1086-99. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0632-x. View