Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Versus How in Visual Search: Effects of Object Recognition Training, Strategy Training, and Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Satellite Image Search

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Cognitive Enhancement Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Visual search is required in many professions where an undetected threat, such as a weapon, can put the well-being of others at risk. Given the importance of detecting these threats, researchers have used various experimental techniques to improve performance in visual search tasks, albeit with varying degrees of success. Here, we explore two promising techniques to improve visual search using ecologically valid synthetic aperture radar stimuli: object recognition training and search strategy training. Search strategy training is intended to make observers search more systematically through a display, whereas object recognition training is intended to improve observers’ ability to recognize critical targets. Search strategy training was implemented by instructing participants to scan through the display in a pre-specified pattern. Object recognition training was implemented by having participants discriminate between targets and non-targets. We also manipulated whether observers received anodal or sham transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during training, which has been shown to improve visual search performance and target learning. To measure the effectiveness of the training and stimulation conditions, we tested object recognition accuracy and overall visual search performance before and after three sessions of increasingly difficult training. Results indicated that object recognition training significantly improved object recognition accuracy relative to the search strategy group, whereas search strategy training was effective in improving visual search accuracy in those who adhered to the training. However, tDCS did not interact with training type, and although both training types yielded significant improvements, training-related improvements were not significantly different between the different approaches. This evidence suggests that strategy-based training could be as effective as the more prototypical object recognition training. Implications for future training protocols are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asamoah, B., Khatoun, A., & Mc Laughlin, M. (2019). tACS motor system effects can be caused by transcutaneous stimulation of peripheral nerves. Nature Communications, 10(1), 266.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Auffermann, W. F., Krupinski, E. A., & Tridandapani, S. (2018). Search pattern training for evaluation of central venous catheter positioning on chest radiographs. Journal of Medical Imaging, 5(3), 031407.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Auffermann, W. F., Little, B. P., & Tridandapani, S. (2015). Teaching search patterns to medical trainees in an educational laboratory to improve perception of pulmonary nodules. Journal of Medical Imaging, 3(1), 011006.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, K. L., Lane, A. R., Smith, D. T., & Ellison, A. (2013). Site-dependent effects of tDCS uncover dissociations in the communication network underlying the processing of visual search. Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, 6(6), 959–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A. T., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2015). Cognitive training can reduce civilian casualties in a simulated shooting environment. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1164–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615579274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A. T., & Mitroff, S. R. (2014). Different predictors of multiple-target search accuracy between nonprofessional and professional visual searchers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1335–1348.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A. T., & Mitroff, S. R. (2019). Visual search training via a consistency protocol: a pilot study. Visual Cognition, 1–11.

  • Bindemann, M. (2010). Scene and screen center bias early eye movements in scene viewing. Vision Research, 50(23), 2577–2587.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolognini, N., Fregni, F., Casati, C., Olgiati, E., & Vallar, G. (2010). Brain polarization of parietal cortex augments training-induced improvement of visual exploratory and attentional skills. Brain Research, 1349, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.06.053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolognini, N., Pascual-Leone, A., & Fregni, F. (2009). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 6(1), 8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelletti, M., Pikkat, H., Upstill, E., Speekenbrink, M., & Walsh, V. (2015). Learning to integrate versus inhibiting information is modulated by age. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(5), 2213–2225. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1018-14.2015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, V. P., Coffman, B. A., Mayer, A. R., Weisend, M. P., Lane, T. D. R., Calhoun, V. D., et al. (2012). TDCS guided using fMRI significantly accelerates learning to identify concealed objects. NeuroImage, 59(1), 117–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coffman, B. A., Trumbo, M. C., Flores, R. A., Garcia, C. M., Van der Merwe, A. J., Wassermann, E. M., et al. (2012). Impact of tDCS on performance and learning of target detection: Interaction with stimulus characteristics and experimental design. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1594–1602.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, I. A., Schrader, L. M., DeGiorgio, C. M., Miller, P. R., Maremont, E. R., & Leuchter, A. F. (2013). Trigeminal nerve stimulation in major depressive disorder: acute outcomes in an open pilot study. Epilepsy & Behavior, 28(2), 221–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, M., Miezin, F. M., Dobmeyer, S., Shulman, G. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1991). Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography. Journal of Neuroscience, 11(8), 2383–2402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (1998). Human cortical mechanisms of visual attention during orienting and search. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 353(1373), 1353–1362.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, T. H., Kettermann, A., Diesch, E., Ostendorf, F., Villringer, A., & Brandt, S. A. (2002). Visual feature and conjunction searches of equal difficulty engage only partially overlapping frontoparietal networks. NeuroImage, 15(1), 16–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, T., & Williams, L. H. (2017). Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2(1), 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2013). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development: Psychology Press.

  • Ehinger, K. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (2016). When is it time to move to the next map? Optimal foraging in guided visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(7), 2135–2151. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1128-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, A., Rushworth, M. F., & Walsh, V. (2003). The parietal cortex in visual search: a visuomotor hypothesis. Supplements to Clinical Neurophysiology, 56, 321–330 Elsevier.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halbherr, T., Schwaninger, A., Budgell, G. R., & Wales, A. (2013). Airport security screener competency: a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(2), 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K. S., Carpenter, A., Johnston, M., Costello, J., Flint, J., & Fiore, S. M. (2012). Adaptive training for visual search. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC 2012). Orlando. Paper.

  • Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Prevalence in visual search: from the clinic to the lab and back again. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(2), 65–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hout, M. C., Walenchok, S. C., Goldinger, S. D., & Wolfe, J. M. (2015). Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: evidence from active and passive visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 977.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidou, F., Hermens, F., & Hodgson, T. (2016). The centrial bias in day-to-day viewing. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 9(6), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2014). The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0364-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. T., Peterson, D. J., Blacker, K. J., & Berryhill, M. E. (2017). Frontoparietal transcranial direct current stimulation modulates working memory training benefits and oscillatory synchronization. Brain Research, 1167, 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, S. M., Hardmeier, D., Michel, S., & Schwaninger, A. (2008). Investigating training, transfer and viewpoint effects resulting from recurrent CBT of X-ray image interpretation. Journal of Transportation Security, 1(2), 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, M. R., Porfido, C. L., & Mitroff, S. R. (2019). Evaluation of strategies to train visual search performance in professional populations. Current opinion in psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, A. R., Smith, D. T., Schenk, T., & Ellison, A. (2011). The involvement of posterior parietal cortex in feature and conjunction visuomotor search. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(8), 1964–1972.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 451.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Gale, A., & Song, T. (2007, October). Detection of terrorist threats in air passenger luggage: Expertise development. In 2007 41st Annual IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (pp. 301–306).

  • Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/36846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Madrid, J., & Hout, M. C. (2019). Examining the effects of passive and active strategies on behavior during hybrid visual memory search: evidence from eye tracking. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, D., Ethell, S., Donovan, T., & Crawford, T. (2006). How do radiologists do it? The influence of experience and training on searching for chest nodules. Radiography, 12(2), 134–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntire, L. K., McKinley, R. A., Goodyear, C., & Nelson, J. M. (2014). A comparison of the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation and caffeine on vigilance and cognitive performance during extended wakefulness. Brain Stimulation, 7(4), 499–507.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIntire, L. K., McKinley, R. A., Nelson, J. M., & Goodyear, C. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) versus caffeine to sustain wakefulness at night when dosing at start-of-shift Advances in Neuroergonomics and Cognitive Engineering (pp. 157-172): Springer International Publishing.

  • McKinley, R. A., McIntire, L. K., Bridges, N., Goodyear, C., Bangera, N. B., & Weisend, M. P. (2013). Acceleration of image analyst training with transcranial direct current stimulation. Behavioral Neuroscience, 127(6), 936.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muggleton, N. G., Juan, C.-H., Cowey, A., & Walsh, V. (2003). Human frontal eye fields and visual search. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89(6), 3340–3343.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Perona, P. (2009). Homo economicus in visual search. Journal of Vision, 9(1), 31–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. M., McKinley, R. A., McIntire, L. K., Goodyear, C., & Walters, C. (2015). Augmenting visual search performance with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Military Psychology, 27(6), 335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. T., McKinley, R. A., Golob, E. J., Warm, J. S., & Parasuraman, R. (2014). Enhancing vigilance in operators with prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). NeuroImage, 85, 909–917.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O'Shea, J., Muggleton, N. G., Cowey, A., & Walsh, V. (2006). On the roles of the human frontal eye fields and parietal cortex in visual search. Visual Cognition, 14(4–8), 934–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersini, R., Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Monetary reward does not cure the prevalence effect in a baggage-screening task. Journal of Vision, 8(6), 310–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2016). Decision processes in visual search as a function of target prevalence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(9), 1466.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2017a). Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2(1), 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2017b). Individual differences predict low prevalence visual search performance. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 2, 5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Petree, L. E., Bullard, L. M., Jung, R. E., Shoemaker, J. M., Vakhtin, A. A., van der Merwe, A. J., & Weisend, M. P. (2011). Alternative electrode methodology for the administration of transcranial direct current stimulation. Paper presented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

  • Richmond, L. L., Wolk, D., Chein, J., & Olson, I. R. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances verbal working memory training performance over time and near transfer outcomes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2443–2454. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwark, J. D., MacDonald, J., Sandry, J., & Dolgov, I. (2013). Prevalence-based decisions undermine visual search. Visual Cognition, 21(5), 541–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, J. A., & Berryhill, M. E. (2016). Older adults improve on everyday tasks after working memory training and neurostimulation. Brain Stimulation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.04.001.

  • Tatler, B. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: selecting an optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature distributions. Journal of Vision, 7(14), 4–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toombs, B. D., & Kalisher, L. (1977). Metastatic disease to the breast: clinical, pathologic, and radiographic features. American Journal of Roentgenology, 129(4), 673–676.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wellings, S. R., Jensen, H. M., & Marcum, R. G. (1975). An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 55(2), 231–273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wetter, O. E. (2013). Imaging in airport security: past, present, future, and the link to forensic and clinical radiology. Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging, 1(4), 152–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiemers, E. A., Redick, T. S., & Morrison, A. B. (2018). The influence of individual differences in cognitive ability on working memory training gains. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1–12.

  • Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. M., & Krekelberg, B. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation over posterior parietal cortex modulates visuospatial localization. Journal of Vision, 14(9). https://doi.org/10.1167/14.9.5.

  • Yang, J. H., McCauley, M. E., & Masotti, E. (2014). Effectiveness evaluation of search and target acquisition training prototype using performance metrics with eye-tracking data. Military Psychology, 26(2), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The views expressed in this article reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the US Government. We would like to thank Andrew Warner, Kyle Pettijohn, Lindsey McIntire, Justin Nelson, Rebecca Brown, Casserly Mullenger, Ryan Schilling, and Mary Shia for help with data collection.

Copyright Statement

LT Adam T. Biggs and LT Chad Peltier are military service members. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. §105 provides that “Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.” Title 17 U.S.C. §101 defines a US Government work as a work prepared by a military service member or employee of the US Government as part of that person’s official duties.

Funding

This work was supported by the Air Force Research Laboratory Chief Scientist’s Office.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Naval Medical Research Unit - Dayton, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA

    Kara J. Blacker & Adam T. Biggs

  2. The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA

    Kara J. Blacker

  3. Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Groton, CT, USA

    Chad Peltier

  4. U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA

    R. Andy McKinley

Authors
  1. Kara J. Blacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chad Peltier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Andy McKinley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adam T. Biggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KB, RM, and AB generated the idea for the study. All the authors designed the experiment. KB and CP edited stimuli and programmed the tasks. KB and CP collected the data. KB analyzed the data. KB and CP wrote the first draft of the manuscript and RM and AB critically edited it. All authors approved the final submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kara J. Blacker.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Air Force Research Laboratory’s Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blacker, K.J., Peltier, C., McKinley, R.A. et al. What Versus How in Visual Search: Effects of Object Recognition Training, Strategy Training, and Non-invasive Brain Stimulation on Satellite Image Search. J Cogn Enhanc 4, 131–144 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00165-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00165-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation