False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 74, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1583-1589

  Schwark, Jeremy ^a   Sandry, Joshua ^a   MacDonald, Justin ^a   Dolgov, Igor ^a  

^a NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Feedback; Low prevalence; Signal detection theory; Visual search

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PREVALENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ADULT; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREVALENCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84870812013     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-012-0354-4     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Blankstein, A. (2012, Jan. 27). TSA mistakes insulin pump for gun, causing LAX security scare. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://latimesblogs. latimes. com/lanow/2012/01/insulin-pump-lax-airport-security. html.
2. Blankstein, A., & Sewell, A. (2011, Oct. 23). Security officials at LAX fail to detect loaded gun in bag. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles. latimes. com/2011/oct/23/local/la-me-tsa-handgun-20111024.
3. Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39-78. doi: 10. 1006/cogp. 1996. 0002.
4. Fenton, J. J., Taplin, S. H., Carney, P. A., Abraham, L., Sickles, E. A., D'Orsi, C., & Elmore, J. G. (2007). Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 1399-1409. doi: 10. 1056/NEJMoa066099.
5. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943-947.
6. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
7. Kornbrot, D. E., Donnelly, M., & Galanter, E. (1981). Estimates of utility function parameters from signal detection experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 441-458. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 7. 2. 441.
8. Mackworth, J. F. (1964). The effect of true and false knowledge of results on the detectability of signals in a vigilance task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 18, 106-117.
9. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1990). Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and "nonparametric" indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 401-413. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 107. 3. 401.
10. Micalizzi, J., & Goldberg, J. H. (1989). Knowledge of results in visual inspection decisions: Sensitivity or criterion effect? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 225-235.
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. doi: 10. 1167/8. 15. 15. 15.
12. Szalma, J. L., Hancock, P. A., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Parsons, K. S. (2006). Training for vigilance: Using predictive power to evaluate feedback effectiveness. Human Factors, 48, 682-692. doi: 10. 1518/001872006779166343.
13. Thomas, E. A. C. (1975). Criterion adjustment and probability matching. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 158-162.
14. 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, & Psychophysics, 71, 541-553. doi: 10. 3758/APP. 71. 3. 541.
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. doi: 10. 1016/j. cub. 2009. 11. 066.