Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 8, pp 2648–2657 | Cite as

How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors

  • Stephen H. AdamoEmail author
  • Patrick H. Cox
  • Dwight J. Kravitz
  • Stephen R. Mitroff


Visual search, finding targets among distractors, is theoretically interesting and practically important as it involves many cognitive abilities and is vital for several critical industries (e.g., radiology, baggage screening). Unfortunately, search is especially error prone when more than one target is present in a display (a phenomenon termed the satisfaction of search effect or the subsequent search miss effect). The general effect is that observers are more likely to miss a second target if a first was already detected. Unpacking the underlying mechanisms requires two key aspects in analysis and design. First, to speak to the “subsequent” nature of the effect, the analyses must compare performance on single-target trials to performance for a second target in dual-target displays after a first has been found. Second, the design must include single-target displays that are matched in difficulty to each dual-target display to enable fair comparisons. However, it is not clear that prior research has met these two standards simultaneously. Work from academic radiology has primarily used designs with well-matched single- and dual-target trials, but most employed analyses that do not focus solely on performance after a first target has been detected. Work from cognitive psychology has generally performed the correct analyses, but relied on unmatched single- and dual-target trials, introducing a confound that could distort the results. In the current paper, we demonstrate the impact of this confound in empirical data and provide a roadmap for proper study design and analyses.


Visual search 



We thank Laura Schubel and the Visual Cognition Lab for their help with data collection. We thank Michelle Kramer, Samoni Nag, Courtney Porfido, Joseph Schmidt, Michael Hout, Chad Peltier, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.


This work was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Ford Fellowship Foundation, the Army Research Office (grant W911NF-16-1-0274), and a Cross Disciplinary Research Fund award from The George Washington University’s Office of the Vice President of Research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Open Practices Statement

The data for all experiments can be made available upon request.


  1. Adamo, S. H., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Self-induced attentional blink: A cause of errors in multiple-target search. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2569–2574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamo, S. H., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2017). An individual differences approach to multiple-target visual search errors: How search errors relate to different characteristics of attention. Vision Research, 141, 258–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamo, S. H., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2018). Satisfaction at last: Evidence for the “satisfaction” account for multiple-target search errors. Proceedings SPIE: Medical Imaging, Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. 105770A.Google Scholar
  4. Ashman, C. J., Yu, J. S., & Wolfman, D. (2000). Satisfaction of search in osteoradiology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 175(2), 541–544.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, M. W., Anderson, K., & Brascamp, J. W. (2019, May). Eye tracking during search for two unique targets to investigate categorical effects in subsequent search misses & the typical method of calculating SSM is biased; An unbiased method suggests some SSM effects may be spurious. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Vision Sciences Society, St. Pete Beach.Google Scholar
  6. Berbaum, K. S. (2012). Satisfaction of search experiments in advanced imaging. Proceedings of SPIE, 8291(1), 82910V–82910V–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berbaum, K. S., Brandser, E. A., Franken, E. A., Dorfman, D. D., Caldwell, R. T., & Krupinski, E. A. (2001). Gaze dwell times on acute trauma injuries missed because of satisfaction of search. Academic Radiology, 8(4), 304–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berbaum, K. S., El-Khoury, G. Y., Franken Jr., E. A., Kuehn, D. M., Meis, D. M., Dorfman, D. D., … Kathol. (1994). Missed fractures resulting from satisfaction of search effect. Emergency Radiology, 1(5), 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berbaum, K. S., Franken Jr., E. A., Anderson, K. L., Dorfman, D. D., Erkonen, W. E., Farrar, G. P., … Phillips, M. E. (1993). The influence of clinical history on visual search with single and multiple abnormalities. Investigative Radiology, 28(3), 191–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berbaum, K. S., Franken Jr., E. A., Dorfman, D. D., Caldwell, R. T., & Krupinski, E. A. (2000). Role of faulty decision making in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. Academic Radiology, 7(12), 1098–1106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berbaum, K. S., Franken Jr., E. A., Dorfman, D. D., Miller, E. M., Caldwell, R. T., Kuehn, D. M., & Berbaum, M. L. (1998). Role of faulty visual search in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. Academic Radiology, 5(1), 9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berbaum, K. S., Franken Jr., E. A., Dorfman, D. D., Rooholamini, S. A., Coffman, C. E., Cornell, S. H., … Kao, S. C. (1991). Time course of satisfaction of search. Investigative Radiology, 26, 640–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berbaum, K. S., Franken Jr., E. A., Dorfman, D. D., Rooholamini, S. A., Kathol, M. H., Barloon, T. J., … Montgomery, W. J. (1990). Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Investigative Radiology, 25(2), 133–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biggs, A. T. (2017). Getting satisfied with “satisfaction of search”: How to measure errors during multiple-target visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(5), 1352–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Biggs, A. T., Adamo, S. H., Dowd, E. W., & Mitroff, S. R. (2015). Examining perceptual and conceptual set biases in multiple-target visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(3), 844–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Biggs, A. T., Kramer, M. R., & Mitroff, S. R. (2018). Using cognitive psychology research to inform professional visual search operations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cain, M. S., Dunsmoor, J. E., LaBar, K. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2011). Anticipatory anxiety hinders Detection of a second target in dual-target search. Psychological Science, 22(7), 866–871.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Memory for found targets interferes with subsequent performance in multiple-target visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 39(5), 1398–1408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cain, M. S., Vul, E., Clark, K., & Mitroff, S. R. (2012). A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search. Psychological Science, 23, 1047–1054.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chan, L. K. H., & Hayward, W. G. (2013). Visual search. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4(4), 415–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cheng, P., & Rich, A. N. (2018). More is better: Relative prevalence of multiple targets affects search accuracy. Journal of Vision, 18(4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckstein, M. P. (2011). Visual search: A retrospective. Journal of Vision, 11(5):1–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fleck, M. S., Samei, E., & Mitroff, S. R. (2010). Generalized “satisfaction of search”: Adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(1), 60–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Franken, E. A., Jr, Berbaum, K. S., Lu, C. H., Kannam, S., Dorfman, D. D., Warnock, N. G., … Pelsang, R. E. (1994). Satisfaction of search in the detection of plain-film abnormalities in abdominal contrast studies. Investigative Radiology, 29(4), 403–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gorbunova, E. S. (2017). Perceptual similarity in visual search for multiple targets. Acta Psychologica, 173, 46–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.Google Scholar
  28. Kriegeskorte, N., Simmons, W. K., Bellgowan, P. S. F., & Baker, C. I. (2009). Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping. Nature Neuroscience, 12(5) 535–540.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakayama, K., & Martini, P. (2011). Situating visual search. Vision Research, 51(13), 1526–1537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Samuel, S., Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., & Toto, L. C. (1995). Mechanism of satisfaction of search: Eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs. Radiology, 194(3), 895–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, M. J. (1967). Error and variation in diagnostic radiology. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  32. Stothart, C., Clement, A., & Brockmole, J. R. (2018). Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tuddenham, W. J. (1962). Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Radiology, 78, 694–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vul E., Harris C., Winkielman P., Pashler H. (2009) Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen H. Adamo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick H. Cox
    • 2
  • Dwight J. Kravitz
    • 2
  • Stephen R. Mitroff
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.The George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations