Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 945–958 | Cite as

Comparing target detection errors in visual search and manually-assisted search

  • Grayden J. F. Solman
  • Kersondra Hickey
  • Daniel Smilek


Subjects searched for low- or high-prevalence targets among static nonoverlapping items or items piled in heaps that could be moved using a computer mouse. We replicated the classical prevalence effect both in visual search and when unpacking items from heaps, with more target misses under low prevalence. Moreover, we replicated our previous finding that while unpacking, people often move the target item without noticing (the unpacking error) and determined that these errors also increase under low prevalence. On the basis of a comparison of item movements during the manually-assisted search and eye movements during static visual search, we suggest that low prevalence leads to broadly reduced diligence during search but that the locus of this reduced diligence depends on the nature of the task. In particular, while misses during visual search often arise from a failure to inspect all of the items, misses during manually-assisted search more often result from a failure to adequately inspect individual items. Indeed, during manually-assisted search, over 90 % of target misses occurred despite subjects having moved the target item during search.


Search Target prevalence Detection errors 



This work was supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant to D.S. and by an NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship and a Killam Trust Postdoctoral Research Fellowship to G.J.F.S.


  1. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 66–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilchrist, I. D., & Harvey, M. (2000). Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search. Current Biology, 10, 1209–1212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gray, W. D., & Fu, W.-T. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28, 359–382.Google Scholar
  7. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113, 461–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Towards a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73, 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirsh, D. (2001). The context of work. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Körner, C., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2007). Finding a new target in an old display: Evidence for a memory recency effect in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 846–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Körner, C., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2008). Memory processes in multiple-target visual search. Psychological Research, 72, 99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCarley, J. S., Wang, R. F., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Peterson, M. S. (2003). How much memory does oculomotor search have? Psychological Science, 14, 422–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pashler, H. (1987). Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peterson, M. S., Kramer, A. F., Wang, R. F., Irwin, D. E., & McCarley, J. S. (2001). Visual search has memory. Psychological Science, 12, 287–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Solman, G. J. F., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2012). Found and missed: Failing to recognize a search target despite moving it. Cognition, 123, 100–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Solman, G. J. F., Wu, N., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2013). In manually-assisted search, perception supervises rather than directs action. Experimental Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000193 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zelinsky, G. J., Rao, R. P. N., Hayhoe, M. M., & Ballard, D. H. (1997). Eye movements reveal the spatiotemporal dynamics of visual search. Psychological Science, 8, 448–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grayden J. F. Solman
    • 1
  • Kersondra Hickey
    • 2
  • Daniel Smilek
    • 2
  1. 1.BAR Lab - Department of PsychologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations