August 2014
Volume 14, Issue 10
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:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users 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.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

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.