Rare Targets Are Rarely Missed in Correctable Search

Failing to find a tumor in an x-ray scan or a gun in an airport baggage screening can have dire consequences, making it fundamentally important to elucidate the mechanisms that hinder performance in such visual searches. Recent laboratory work has indicated that low target prevalence can lead to disturbingly high miss rates in visual search. Here, however, we demonstrate that misses in low-prevalence searches can be readily abated. When targets are rarely present, observers adapt by responding more quickly, and miss rates are high. Critically, though, these misses are often due to response-execution errors, not perceptual or identification errors: Observers know a target was present, but just respond too quickly. When provided an opportunity to correct their last response, observers can catch their mistakes. Thus, low target prevalence may not be a generalizable cause of high miss rates in visual search.

[1]  P. Rabbitt.  Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  On the nature of errors in a choice reaction task , 1967 .

[3]  H L Kundel,et al.  Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. , 1978, Investigative radiology.

[4]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. , 1992, Radiology.

[5]  L. Berlin,et al.  Reporting the "missed" radiologic diagnosis: medicolegal and ethical considerations. , 1994, Radiology.

[6]  H L Kundel,et al.  Mechanism of satisfaction of search: eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs. , 1995, Radiology.

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

[8]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[9]  David Gur,et al.  Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. , 2003, Radiology.

[10]  David Gur,et al.  From the laboratory to the clinic: the "prevalence effect". , 2003, Academic radiology.

[11]  T. Donovan,et al.  Detection or decision errors? Missed lung cancer from the posteroanterior chest radiograph. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[12]  Warren H. Meck,et al.  Systems-level integration of interval timing and reaction time , 2004, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[13]  N. Obuchowski.  One Less Bias to Worry About [letter] , 2004 .

[14]  N. Obuchowski.  One less bias to worry about. , 2004, Radiology.

[15]  Arthur F Kramer,et al.  Visual Skills in Airport-Security Screening , 2004, Psychological science.

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

[17]  Diana Hardmeier,et al.  Aviation Security Screeners Visual Abilities & Visual Knowledge Measurement , 2005 .

[18]  David Gur,et al.  The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings. , 2007, Academic radiology.

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