Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets

Visual Cognition

Volumn 18, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1439-1463

  Godwin, Hayward J ^a   Menneer, Tamaryn ^a   Cave, Kyle R ^b   Donnelly, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REACTION TIME; X RAY;

EID: 78649431824     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2010.500605     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Berlin, L. (2000). Hindsight bias. American Journal of Roentology, 175(3), 597-601.
2. Fleck, M. S., Samei, E., & Mitroff, S. R. (2010). Generalized ''satisfaction of search'': Adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(1),60-71.
3. Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Helman, S., Way, R. L., & Donnelly, N. (2010). The impact of relative prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening. Acta Psychologica, 134(1), 79-84.
4. Hofer, F., & Schwaninger, A. (2005). Using threat image projection data for assessing individual screener performance. Safety and Security Engineering, 82, 417-426.
5. Kundel, H. L. (2000). Disease prevalence and the index of detectability: A survey of studies of lung cancer detection by chest radiography. In E. A. Krupinski (Ed.), Medical imaging 2000: Image perception and performance (pp. 135-144). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
6. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2004). Search efficiency for multiple targets. Cognitive Technology, 9, 22-25.
8. Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2007). Costs in searching for two targets: Dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 915-932.
9. Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: The effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125-139.
10. Menneer, T., Donnelly, N., Godwin, H. J., & Cave, K. R. (2010). High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 16,133-144.
11. Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & 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. Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 71, 541-553.
13. Wickens, T. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visualsearches. Nature, 435, 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.