The Ultra-Rare-Item Effect: Visual Search for Exceedingly Rare Items Is Highly Susceptible to Error

Psychological Science

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 284-289

  Mitroff, Stephen R ^a   Biggs, Adam T ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

visual attention; visual memory; visual search

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTENTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; ATTENTION; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; SPACE PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84891935543     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504221     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. BerbaumK. S. (2012). Satisfaction of search experiments in advanced imaging. Proceedings of SPIE, 8291(1), Article 82910V. Retrieved from http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1283355.
2. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. (2009). Cancer rate (per 1,000 examinations) and cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations) for 1,960,150 screening mammography examinations from 2002 to 2006 by age. Retrieved from http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/2009/rate_age.html.
3. Cain M. S.,Vul E.,Clark K.,Mitroff S. R.A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search.Psychological Science. 2012;23:1047-1054.
4. Clark K.,Cain M. S.,Adamo S. H.,Mitroff S. R.Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 59. The influence of attention, learning, and motivation on visual search. Dodd M. D.Flowers J. H., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2012:147-181.
5. Evans K. K.,Evered A.,Tambouret R. H.,Wilbur D. C.,Wolfe J. M.Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer.Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2011;135:1557-1560.
6. Fleck M. S.,Mitroff S. R.Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search.Psychological Science. 2007;18:943-947.
7. Gur D.,Bandos A. I.,Fuhrman C. R.,Klym A. H.,King J. L.,Rockette H. E.Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings.Academic Radiology. 2007;14:49-53.
8. Gur D.,Rockette H. E.,Armfield D. R.,Blachar A.,Bogan J. K.,Brancatelli G.,Warfel T. E.Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.Radiology. 2003;228:10-14.
9. Hofer F.,Schwaninger A.Using threat image projection data for assessing individual screener performance.WIT Transactions on the Built Environment. 2005;82:417-426.
10. Leber A. B.,Egeth H. E.Attention on autopilot: Past experience and attentional set.Visual Cognition. 2006;14:565-583.
11. Mackworth J.Vigilance and attention. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin; 1970:.
12. Menneer T.,Donnelly N.,Godwin H. J.,Cave K. R.High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2010;16:122-144.
13. Sickles E. A.Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers.American Journal of Roentgenology. 1986;146:661-663.
14. Wolfe J. M.Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search?.Psychological Science. 2012;23:698-703.
15. Wolfe J. M.,Horowitz T. S.,Kenner N. M.Rare items often missed in visual searches.Nature. 2005;435:439-440.
16. 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;136:623-638.
17. Wolfe J. M.,Van Wert M.Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search.Current Biology. 2010;20:121-124.