The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 115-123

  Ishibashi, Kazuya ^a,b   Kita, Shinichi ^a   Wolfe, Jeremy M ^c  

^a KOBE UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Explicit expectation; Prevalence effect; Search termination time; Visual search

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856134389     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0225-4     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bond, A. B., & Kamil, A. C. (1998). Apostatic selection by blue jays produces balanced polymorphism in virtual prey. Nature, 395, 594-596.
2. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436. doi: 10. 1163/156856897X00357.
3. Egeth, H. (1977). Attention and preattention. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 277-320). New York: Academic Press.
4. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943-947.
5. Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2010). Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets. Visual Cognition, 18, 1439-1463.
6. Gur, D., Sumkin, J. H., Rockette, H. E., Ganott, M., Hakim, C., Hardesty, L., ... Wallace, L. (2004). Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96, 185.
7. Healy, A. F., & Kubovy, 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. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 7. 5. 344.
8. Kristjánsson, Á., Wang, D. L., & Nakayama, K. (2002). The role of priming in conjunctive visual search. Cognition, 85, 37-52. doi: 10. 1016/S0010-0277(02)00074-4.
9. Lau, J. S. H., & Huang, L. (2010). The prevalence effect is determined by past experience, not future prospects. Vision Research, 50, 1469-1474.
10. Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22, 657-672. doi: 10. 3758/BF03209251.
11. Olendorf, R., Rodd, F. H., Punzalan, D., Houde, A. E., Hurt, C., Reznick, D. N., et al. (2006). Frequency-dependent survival in natural guppy populations. Nature, 441, 633-636.
12. Reed, W. M., Ryan, J. T., McEntee, M. F., Evanoff, M. G., & Brennan, P. C. (2011). The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on expert observer performance and visual search. Radiology, 258, 938-943.
13. 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), 15: 1-17. doi: 10. 1167/8. 15. 15.
14. Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 29, 483-502. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 29. 2. 483.
15. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439-440. doi: 10. 1038/435439a.
16. 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, 623-638. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 136. 4. 623.
17. Wolfe, J. M., & van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121-124.