Abstract
The proportion of trials on which a target is presented (referred to as the target prevalence) during visual search influences the probability that the target will be detected. As prevalence increases, participants become biased toward reporting that the target is present. This bias results in an increase in detection rates for the target, coupled with an increased likelihood of making a false alarm. Previous work has demonstrated that, as prevalence increases, participants spend an increasing period of time searching on target-absent trials. The goal of the present study was to determine the information processing during the additional time spent searching on target-absent trials as prevalence increased. We recorded participants’ eye movement behavior as they were engaged in low-prevalence (25% target-present trials), medium-prevalence (50%), or high-prevalence (75%) search. Increased prevalence primarily influenced search by increasing the time spent examining objects in the display, rather than by increasing the proportion of objects examined in each display. In addition, the additional time spent examining objects in high-prevalence target-absent trials was the result of revisiting objects. We discuss the implications of these results in relation to current models of search as well as ongoing efforts to alleviate the prevalence effect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384. doi:10.3758/BF03192707
Becker, S. I. (2011). Determinants of dwell time in visual search: Similarity of perceptual difficulty? PLoS ONE, 6(e17740), 1–5. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017740
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. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0002
Findlay, J. M., & Walker, R. (1999). A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 661–674.
Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02006.x
Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2010a). Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets. Visual Cognition, 18, 1439–1493. doi:10.1080/13506285.2010.500605
Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Helman, S., Way, R. L., & Donnelly, N. (2010b). The impact of relative prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening. Acta Psychologica, 134, 79–84. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.009
Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 6–14. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01418-7
Luria, S. M., & Strauss, M. S. (1975). Eye movements during search for coded and uncoded targets. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 303–308. doi:10.3758/BF03203215
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Menneer, T., Donnelly, N., Godwin, H. J., & Cave, K. R. (2010). High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 133–144. doi:10.1037/a0019569
Nocum, D. J., Brennan, P. C., Huang, R. T., & Reed, W. M. (2013). The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on naïve observer performance and visual search. Radiography, 19, 196–199. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2013.04.004
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. doi:10.1080/17470210902816461
Reed, W. M., Ryan, J. T., McEntee, M. F., Evanoff, M. G., & Brennan, P. C. (2011). The effect of abnormality- prevalence expectation on purpose. Radiology, 258, 938–943. doi:10.1148/radiol.10101090
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), 1–17. doi:10.1167/8.15.15
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. doi:10.3758/APP.71.3.541
Wolfe, J. M., Brunelli, D. N., Rubinstein, J., & Horowitz, T. S. (2013). Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 33:1–9. doi:10.1167/13.3.33
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440. doi:10.1038/435439a
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. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623
Wolfe, J. M., Palmer, E. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2010). Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search. Vision Research, 50, 1304–1311. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.002
Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066
Zelinsky, G. (2008). A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review, 115, 787–835. doi:10.1037/a0013118
Author note
This work was supported by funding from the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council (Grant Ref. ES/I032398/1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOC 62 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godwin, H.J., Menneer, T., Cave, K.R. et al. The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 469–475 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0686-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0686-2