August 2023
Volume 23, Issue 9
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2023
Using Probe Trials Reduces the Low-Prevalence Effect but Target Generalization is Limited
Author Affiliations
  • Mark W. Becker
    Michigan State University
  • Andrew Rodriguez
    Michigan State University
Journal of Vision August 2023, Vol.23, 5457. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5457
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Mark W. Becker, Andrew Rodriguez; Using Probe Trials Reduces the Low-Prevalence Effect but Target Generalization is Limited. Journal of Vision 2023;23(9):5457. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.23.9.5457.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

The Low Prevalence Effect (LPE), the increased rate of misses for rare targets, is a stubborn problem with potential consequences for real-world searches. One promising method for mitigating LPE is to add “probe” trials, consisting of a target with feedback, to a low-prevalence search task. However, the original experiments using this method had a single target, thus the target was identical in probe and non-probe trials. Here we investigate the extent to which this probe benefit generalizes to targets that are probed infrequently or not at all. In theory, if probes increase quitting thresholds, the benefits might generalize. In one paradigm, Ss searched for Ts and Os among L and Q distractors. A control block consisted of 240 trials and each target appeared 24 times. The experimental block had the same 240 trials plus 50 randomly dispersed probe trials, and we varied the percentage of probe trials that matched each target. Results suggested that the probe benefit was proportional to the number of probes that matched a specific target. Eye-tracking data suggest that probes increased quitting thresholds, but this failed to produce a generalized benefit because it was coupled with an attentional bias toward features of the commonly probed targets. In a second approach, Ss searched for weapons among an array of photorealistic objects. Targets were exemplars drawn from three basic-level categories (guns, knives, axes). In a control block, each basic-level target appeared with a 6.67% prevalence rate. In the probe block, 80% of probe targets matched one basic-level category, 20% matched a second, and 0% matched the third. We hoped that probing two of the basic-level categories would produce a benefit that generalized to the superordinate category, however results suggest that the probe benefit did not generalize to the category. Thus, the LPE continues to be a stubborn problem.

×
×

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.

×