August 2014
Volume 14, Issue 10
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2014
The low-prevalence effect is due to failures of attention, not premature search termination or motor errors: Evidence from passive search and eye-movements.
Author Affiliations
  • Michael Hout
    New Mexico State University
  • Steve Walenchok
    Arizona State University
  • Stephen Goldinger
    Arizona State University
  • Jeremy Wolfe
    Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Journal of Vision August 2014, Vol.14, 221. doi:10.1167/14.10.221
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Michael Hout, Steve Walenchok, Stephen Goldinger, Jeremy Wolfe; The low-prevalence effect is due to failures of attention, not premature search termination or motor errors: Evidence from passive search and eye-movements.. Journal of Vision 2014;14(10):221. doi: 10.1167/14.10.221.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Infrequently encountered targets are missed disproportionately often. This low prevalence effect (LPE) is a robust problem with significant societal consquences (Wolfe et al., 2007). Fleck & Mitroff (2007) suggested that the LPE might reflect premature search termination or response errors. Alternative models argue that prevalence influences observers decision-making criteria and quitting thresholds. In four experiments with nearly 400 participants, we examined the LPE using standard visual search (with eye-tracking), and two variants of a passive RSVP task. In the RSVP task, sequences of stimuli with or without a target are presented to observers who respond present/absent after the sequence ends (following Hout & Goldinger, 2010). In all experiments, people looked for two target categories simultaneously. The low-prevalence target appeared much less often than its counterpart, while overall target prevalence was 50% in all conditions. In some conditions, people searched for the categories "teddy bear" and "butterfly" among other real-world objects. In other conditions, people searched for specific bears or butterflies among distractors from the same two categories. Results: 1) In standard search, we found an RT benefit for high-prevalence targets. They were found more quickly than low-prevalence targets; 2) In passive RSVP search, the LPE persisted, even though participants never had to terminate search on their own (responses were made following presentation of the entire stream); 3) Eye-tracking analyses showed that fast RTs to the high-prevalence item were explained by better attentional guidance, as indicated by scan-path ratios, and faster perceptual decision-making (indexed by post-fixation RTs); and 4) Even when people look directly at low-prevalence targets, they failed to report them on between 12% and 29% of trials (depending on the experiment). These results strongly argue for an attentional account of the LPE. Low-prevalence misses appear to represent failures of attention, rather than early search termination or motor errors.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014

×
×

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.

×