Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 541–553 | Cite as

Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed

  • Michael J. Van Wert
  • Todd S. Horowitz
  • Jeremy M. Wolfe
Research Articles

Abstract

Socially important visual search tasks, such as airport baggage screening and tumor detection, place observers in situations where the targets are rare and the consequences of failed detection are substantial. Recent laboratory studies have demonstrated that low target prevalence yields substantially higher miss errors than do high-prevalence conditions, in which the same targets appear frequently (Wolfe, Horowitz, & Kenner, 2005; Wolfe et al., 2007). Under some circumstances, this \ldprevalence effect\rd can be eliminated simply by allowing observers to correct their last response (Fleck & Mitroff, 2007). However, in three experiments involving search of realistic X-ray luggage images, we found that the prevalence effect is eliminated neither by giving observers the choice to correct a previous response nor by requiring observers to confirm their responses. This prevalence effect, obtained when no trial-by-trial feedback was given, was smaller than the effect obtained when observers searched through the same stimuli but were given trial-by-trial feedback about accuracy. We suggest that low prevalence puts pressure on observers in any search task, and that the diverse symptoms of that pressure manifest themselves differently in different situations. In some relatively simple search tasks, misses may result from motor or response errors. In other, more complex tasks, shifts in decision criteria appear to be an important contributor.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D., & Colquhoun, W. P. (1969). Signal probability and vigilance: A reappraisal of the “signal-rate” effect. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 169–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Colquhoun, W. P., & Baddeley, A. D. (1967). Influence of signal probability during pretraining on vigilance decrement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 153–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cousineau, D., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). Termination of a visual search with large display size effects. Spatial Vision, 17, 327–352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 275–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Gur, D., Sumkin, J. H., Rockette, H. E., Ganott, M., Hakim, C., Hardesty, L., et al. (2004). Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96, 185–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Healy, A. F., & Kubovy, M. (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 7, 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiang, Y., Miglioretti, D. L., Metz, C. E., & Schmidt, R. A. (2007). Breast cancer detection rate: Designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements. Radiology, 243, 360–367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, H., Li, F., Gao, H. H., Chen, A., & Lin, C. (2006). Appropriate responding can reduce miss errors in visual search. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  13. Mackworth, J. F., & Taylor, M. M. (1963). The d’ measure of signal detectability in vigilance-like situations. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 302–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Maddox, W. T. (2002). Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 567–595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Palmer, J., Verghese, P., & Pavel, M. (2000). The psychophysics of visual search. Vision Research, 40, 1227–1268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pastore, R. E., Crawley, E. J., Berens, M. S., & Skelly, M. A. (2003). “Nonparametric” A’ and other modern misconceptions about signal detection theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 556–569.Google Scholar
  18. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pisano, E. D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., Yaffe, M., Baum, J. K., Acharyya, S., et al. (2005). Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1773–1783.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15, Art. 15), 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubenstein, J. (2001). Test and evaluation plan: X-Ray Image Screener Selection Test (No. DOT/FAA/AR-01/47). Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Research.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, P. A., & Turnbull, L. S. (1997). Small cell and “pale” dyskaryosis. Cytopathology, 8, 3–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zenger, B., & Fahle, M. (1997). Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: A model for error rates in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1783–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Van Wert
    • 1
  • Todd S. Horowitz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeremy M. Wolfe
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Brigham and Women’s HospitalBoston
  2. 2.Harvard Medical SchoolBoston
  3. 3.Visual Attention LabBrigham and Women’s HospitalCambridge

Personalised recommendations