The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search

The proportion of trials on which a target is presented (referred to as the target prevalence) during visual search influences the probability that the target will be detected. As prevalence increases, participants become biased toward reporting that the target is present. This bias results in an increase in detection rates for the target, coupled with an increased likelihood of making a false alarm. Previous work has demonstrated that, as prevalence increases, participants spend an increasing period of time searching on target-absent trials. The goal of the present study was to determine the information processing during the additional time spent searching on target-absent trials as prevalence increased. We recorded participants’ eye movement behavior as they were engaged in low-prevalence (25% target-present trials), medium-prevalence (50%), or high-prevalence (75%) search. Increased prevalence primarily influenced search by increasing the time spent examining objects in the display, rather than by increasing the proportion of objects examined in each display. In addition, the additional time spent examining objects in high-prevalence target-absent trials was the result of revisiting objects. We discuss the implications of these results in relation to current models of search as well as ongoing efforts to alleviate the prevalence effect.

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

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

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

[4]  S. Liversedge,et al.  Saccadic eye movements and cognition , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[6]  R. Bakeman Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs , 2005, Behavior research methods.

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

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

[9]  K. Rayner The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

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

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

[13]  Christopher P Benton,et al.  The direction of measured face aftereffects. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[14]  Evan M. Palmer,et al.  Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search , 2010, Vision Research.

[15]  H. Field,et al.  Investigation of the Climatic and Environmental Context of Hendra Virus Spillover Events 1994–2010 , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  Andrew T. Smith,et al.  Sensitivity of human visual cortical areas to the stereoscopic depth of a moving stimulus. , 2008, Journal of vision.

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

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

[19]  S. M. Luria,et al.  Eye movements during search for coded and uncoded targets , 1975 .

[20]  R. Walker,et al.  A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  G. Zelinsky A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. , 2008, Psychological review.

[22]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

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

[24]  Stefanie I. Becker Determinants of Dwell Time in Visual Search: Similarity or Perceptual Difficulty? , 2011, PloS one.

[25]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .