The impact of Relative Prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 134, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 79-84

  Godwin, Hayward J ^a   Menneer, Tamaryn ^a   Cave, Kyle R ^b   Helman, Shaun ^c   Way, Rachael L ^c   Donnelly, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Airport security; Dual target search; Low prevalence; Signal detection; Visual search

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REACTION TIME; TERRORISM; X RAY; X RAY FILM;

ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; REACTION TIME; SECURITY MEASURES; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TERRORISM; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS; X-RAYS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952243469     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Berbaum K.S., Franken E.A., Dorfman D.D., Caldwell R.T., Krupinkski E.A. Role of faulty decision-making in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. Academic Radiology 2000, 7(12):1098-1106.
2. Chun M.M., Wolfe J.M. Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?. Cognitive Psychology 1996, 30(1):39-78.
3. Estes W.K., Burke C.J., Atkinson R.C., Frankmann J.P. Probabilistic discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1957, 54:233-239.
4. Fitts P.M., Peterson J.R., Wolpe G. Cognitive aspects of information processing: II. Adjustments to stimulus redundancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1963, 65:423-432.
5. Fleck M.S., Mitroff S.R. Rare targets rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science 2007, 18:943-947.
6. LaBerge D., Tweedy J.R. Presentation probability and choice time. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1964, 68(5):477-481.
7. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2nd ed.
8. Menneer T., Barrett D.J.K., Phillips L., Donnelly N., Cave K.R. Search efficiency for multiple targets. Cognitive Technology 2004, 9:22-25.
9. Menneer T., Barrett D.J.K., Phillips L., Donnelly N., Cave K.R. Costs in searching for two targets: Dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21:915-932.
10. Menneer T., Cave K.R., Donnelly N. The cost of search for multiple targets: The effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2009, 15:125-139.
11. Menneer, T., Donnelly, N., Godwin, H. J., & Cave, K. R. (submitted for publication). High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
12. Menneer T., Stroud M., Cave K.R., Donnelly N., Rayner K. Eye movements in search for multiple targets. Cognitive and cultural influences on eye movements 2008, Psychology Press, London, UK. K. Rayner, D. Shen, X. Bai, G. Yan (Eds.).
13. Miller J., Bauer D.W. Visual similarity and discrimination demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1981, 110(1):39-55.
14. Pashler H. Target-distractor discriminability in visual search. Perception and Psychophysics 1987, 41(4):385-392.
15. Smith J.D., Redford J.S., Gent L.C., Washburn D.A. Visual search and the collapse of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2005, 134(4):443-460.
16. Smith J.D., Redford J.S., Washburn D.A., Taglialatela L.A. Specific-token effects in screening tasks: Possible implications for aviation security. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2005, 31(6):1171-1185.
17. Townsend J.T., Ashby F.G. The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18. Wolfe J.M., Horowitz T.S., Kenner N.M. Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 2005, 435:439-440.
19. Wolfe J.M., Horowitz T.S., Van Wert M.J., Kenner N.M., Place S.S., Kibbi N. Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2007, 136(4):623-638.