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

Visual Cognition

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 881-897

  Kunar, Melina A ^a   Rich, Anina N ^b   Wolfe, Jeremy M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Airport screening; Attention; Low prevalence; Space and time; Visual search

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RESPONSE TIME; SCREENING TEST; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE; TIME PERCEPTION; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 77953484515     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280903361988     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 443-446.
2. 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.
3. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943-947.
4. 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. 14, pp. 1093-1102), April 2009.
5. 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.
6. Hogg, R. V., & Craig, A. T. (1995). Introduction to mathematical statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. 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.
8. Maddox, W. T. (2002). Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 567-595.
9. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
10. Posner, M., Snyder, C., & Davidson, B. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160-174.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435(7041), 439-440.
15. 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.
16. Wolfe, J. M., & van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121-124.