Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance Failures of Perception in the Low-Prevalence Effect: Evidence From Active and Passive Visual Search

In visual search, rare targets are missed disproportionately often. This low-prevalence effect (LPE) is a robust problem with demonstrable societal consequences. What is the source of the LPE? Is it a perceptual bias against rare targets or a later process, such as premature search termination or motor response errors? In 4 experiments, we examined the LPE using standard visual search (with eye tracking) and 2 variants of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) in which observers made present/absent decisions after sequences ended. In all experiments, observers looked for 2 target categories (teddy bear and butterfly) simultaneously. To minimize simple motor errors, caused by repetitive absent responses, we held overall target prevalence at 50%, with 1 low-prevalence and 1 high-prevalence target type. Across conditions, observers either searched for targets among other real-world objects or searched for specific bears or butterflies among within-category distractors. We report 4 main results: (a) In standard search, high-prevalence targets were found more quickly and accurately than low-prevalence targets. (b) The LPE persisted in RSVP search, even though observers never terminated search on their own. (c) Eye-tracking analyses showed that high-prevalence targets elicited better attentional guidance and faster perceptual decisions. And (d) even when observers looked directly at low-prevalence targets, they often (12%-34% of trials) failed to detect them. These results strongly argue that low-prevalence misses represent failures of perception when early search termination or motor errors are controlled.

[1]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Hybrid search in the temporal domain: Evidence for rapid, serial logarithmic search through memory , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  Conceptual Distinctiveness Supports Detailed Visual Long-term Memory for Real-world Objects the Fidelity of Long-term Memory for Visual Information , 2022 .

[3]  Xingshan Li,et al.  Search for two categories of target produces fewer fixations to target-color items. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[4]  George L. Malcolm,et al.  The effects of target template specificity on visual search in real-world scenes: evidence from eye movements. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[5]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Search efficiency for multiple targets , 2004 .

[6]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  S. Mitroff,et al.  Rare Targets Are Rarely Missed in Correctable Search , 2007, Psychological science.

[8]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[9]  Karla K. Evans,et al.  If You Don’t Find It Often, You Often Don’t Find It: Why Some Cancers Are Missed in Breast Cancer Screening , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Costs in Searching for Two Targets: Dividing Search Across Target Types Could Improve Airport Security Screening , 2007 .

[11]  Hany Farid,et al.  Task Demands Determine the Specificity of the Search Template , 2022 .

[12]  Igor Dolgov,et al.  Prevalence-based decisions undermine visual search , 2013 .

[13]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  Trafton Drew,et al.  Hybrid search in context: How to search for vegetables in the produce section and cereal in the cereal aisle , 2013, Visual cognition.

[16]  Aude Oliva,et al.  Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: trained observers miss rare targets, too. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[18]  Brad Wyble,et al.  Detecting meaning in RSVP at 13 ms per picture , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[19]  Mark F McEntee,et al.  The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on expert observer performance and visual search. , 2011, Radiology.

[20]  P. Brennan,et al.  Can prevalence expectations drive radiologists' behavior? , 2014, Academic radiology.

[21]  Shinichi Kita,et al.  The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[23]  J. Wolfe.  Saved by a Log , 2012, Psychological science.

[24]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Igor Dolgov,et al.  Evidence for a Positive Relationship between Working-Memory Capacity and Detection of Low-Prevalence Targets in Visual Search , 2013, Perception.

[26]  Stephen D. Goldinger,et al.  Learning in repeated visual search , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[27]  Joseph W. Houpt,et al.  Faster than the speed of rejection: Object identification processes during visual search for multiple targets. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[28]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  26.5 brief comms NEW , 2005 .

[30]  Why rare targets are slow: Evidence that the target probability effect has an attentional locus , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[31]  C. MacLeod,et al.  Attentional bias in emotional disorders. , 1986, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[32]  Stephen D. Goldinger,et al.  MM-MDS: A Multidimensional Scaling Database with Similarity Ratings for 240 Object Categories from the Massive Memory Picture Database , 2014, PloS one.

[33]  Anina N. Rich,et al.  Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search , 2010, Visual cognition.

[34]  George L. Malcolm,et al.  Combining top-down processes to guide eye movements during real-world scene search. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[35]  Igor Dolgov,et al.  False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[36]  L. Tinbergen.  The Natural Control of Insects in Pinewoods , 1960 .

[37]  N. Macmillan,et al.  Response bias : characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and nonparametric indexes , 1990 .

[38]  E. Charnov.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[39]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Feature-based attention: it is all bottom-up priming , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  J. Allan Cheyne,et al.  Found and missed: Failing to recognize a search target despite moving it , 2012, Cognition.

[41]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer. , 2011, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[42]  Michael C Hout,et al.  Target templates: the precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Hany Farid,et al.  The specificity of the search template. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[44]  Charlotte A. Riggs,et al.  Perceptual failures in the selection and identification of low-prevalence targets in relative prevalence visual search , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[45]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  How fast can you change your mind? The speed of top-down guidance in visual search , 2004, Vision Research.

[46]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  The Ultra-Rare-Item Effect , 2014, Psychological science.

[47]  J. Wolfe,et al.  When does repeated search in scenes involve memory? Looking at versus looking for objects in scenes. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  M. Defayolle.  VIGILANCE AND ATTENTION , 1979 .

[49]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Varying Target Prevalence Reveals Two Dissociable Decision Criteria in Visual Search , 2010, Current Biology.

[50]  Valerie M. Beck,et al.  Simultaneous Control of Attention by Multiple Working Memory Representations , 2012, Psychological science.

[51]  E. Fox,et al.  Allocation of visual attention and anxiety. , 1993, Cognition & emotion.

[52]  Anina N. Rich,et al.  Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[53]  J. Biernaskie,et al.  Bumblebees Learn to Forage like Bayesians , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[54]  Carrick C. Williams.  Not all visual memories are created equal , 2010 .

[55]  Edward Vul,et al.  A Bayesian Optimal Foraging Model of Human Visual Search , 2012, Psychological science.

[56]  Michael C Hout,et al.  Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: evidence from eye movements. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets , 2010 .

[58]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  The impact of Relative Prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening. , 2010, Acta psychologica.