August 2009
Volume 9, Issue 8
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2009
The prevlanece effect is imbalanced: It is stronger for high target presentation rates, than for low
Author Affiliations
  • Hayward J. Godwin
    University of Southampton
  • Tammy Menneer
    University of Southampton
  • Kyle R. Cave
    University of Massachusetts
  • Victoria Cutler
    QinetiQ
  • Nick Donnelly
    University of Southampton
Journal of Vision August 2009, Vol.9, 1171. doi:10.1167/9.8.1171
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Hayward J. Godwin, Tammy Menneer, Kyle R. Cave, Victoria Cutler, Nick Donnelly; The prevlanece effect is imbalanced: It is stronger for high target presentation rates, than for low. Journal of Vision 2009;9(8):1171. doi: 10.1167/9.8.1171.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Low frequency of target appearance in visual search increases the chance that an observer will respond ‘absent’, resulting in an increase in correct rejection rates, but also a decrease in hit rates (the ‘prevalence effect’). Additionally, searching for more than one target at a time reduces the chance that a target will be detected (the ‘dual-target cost’). Both the prevalence effect (Wolfe et al., 2007) and the dual-target cost (Menneer et al., 2007) have recently been cited as a cause for concern for those working in airport X-ray screening, where screeners search for multiple threat items that appear infrequently. Here, we present two experiments in which target prevalence was varied across a full range of presentation rates (across two experiments, prevalence levels of 2%, 20%, 24%, 50%, 76%, 80% and 98% were examined), finding that, although the dual-target cost did not interact with the prevalence effect, there was a surprising imbalance between the low and high prevalence conditions. In very high prevalence conditions (80%, 98% prevalence), participants were exceedingly biased towards responding ‘present’. Although the opposite effect was observed in the very low prevalence conditions (2%, 20%), with a bias towards responding ‘absent’, the effect was considerably weaker. Thus, there appears to be some intrinsic imbalance in the manner in which ‘present’ and ‘absent’ responses are made as prevalence varies.

Godwin, H. J. Menneer, T. Cave, K. R. Cutler, V. Donnelly, N. (2009). The prevlanece effect is imbalanced: It is stronger for high target presentation rates, than for low [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 9(8):1171, 1171a, http://journalofvision.org/9/8/1171/, doi:10.1167/9.8.1171. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 Supported by a grant from the UK Department for Transport and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×