A novel, unbiased approach to evaluating subsequent search misses in dual target visual search

Research in radiology and visual cognition suggest that finding one target during visual search may result in increased misses for a second target, an effect known as subsequent search misses (SSM). Here, we demonstrate that the common method of calculating second-target detection performance is biased and could produce spurious SSM effects. We describe the source of that bias and document factors that influence its magnitude. We use a modification of signal-detection theory to develop a novel, unbiased method of calculating the expected value for dual-target performance under the null hypothesis. We then apply our novel method to two of our data sets that showed modest SSM effects when calculated in the traditional manner. Our correction reduced the effect size to the point that there was no longer a significant SSM effect. We then applied our method to a published data set that had a larger effect size when calculated using the traditional calculation as well as when using an alternative calculation that was recently proposed to account for biases in the traditional method. We find that both the traditional method and the recently proposed alternative substantially overestimate the magnitude of the SSM effect in these data, but a significant SSM effect persisted even with our calculation. We recommend that future SSM studies use our method to ensure accurate effect-size estimates, and suggest that the method be applied to reanalyze published results, particularly those with small effect sizes, to rule out the possibility that they were spurious.

[1]  Matthew S Cain,et al.  Memory for found targets interferes with subsequent performance in multiple-target visual search. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[3]  William Hendee,et al.  The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques. , 2010, Medical physics.

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[5]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  Getting satisfied with “satisfaction of search”: How to measure errors during multiple-target visual search , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[6]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  Different Predictors of Multiple-Target Search Accuracy between Nonprofessional and Professional Visual Searchers , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  Missed fractures resulting from satisfaction of search effect , 1994, Emergency Radiology.

[8]  Matthew S Cain,et al.  A little bit of history repeating: Splitting up multiple-target visual searches decreases second-target miss errors. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[9]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[10]  Zoltan Dienes,et al.  Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[11]  Stephen R. Mitroff,et al.  A taxonomy of errors in multiple-target visual search , 2013 .

[12]  Elena S. Gorbunova,et al.  Perceptual similarity in visual search for multiple targets. , 2016, Acta psychologica.

[13]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Proper ROC analysis and joint ROC analysis of the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiology. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[14]  Stephen H Adamo,et al.  How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors , 2019, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[15]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Cause of satisfaction of search effects in contrast studies of the abdomen. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[16]  Stephen H. Adamo,et al.  The Flux Capacitor Account: A New Account of Multiple Target Visual Search Errors , 2018 .

[17]  W. J. Tuddenham Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception. , 1962, Radiology.

[18]  S H Cornell,et al.  Time course of satisfaction of search. , 1991, Investigative radiology.

[19]  Stephen R. Mitroff,et al.  Satisfaction at last: evidence for the 'satisfaction' account for multiple-target search errors , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[20]  Matthew S Cain,et al.  Anticipatory Anxiety Hinders Detection of a Second Target in Dual-Target Search , 2011, Psychological science.

[21]  R. Pringle Missed fractures. , 1973, Injury.