Prevalence-based decisions undermine visual search

REFERENCES

• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, T., Evans, K., Vo, M., Jacobson, F. L., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). Informatics in radiology: What can you see in a single glance and how might this guide visual search in medical images? Radiographics, 33, 263–274. doi:10.1148/rg.331125023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenton, J. J., Taplin, S. H., Carney, P. A., Abraham, L., Sickles, E. A., D'Orsi, C., … Elmore, J. G. (2007). Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 1399–1409. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa066099
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 389–413. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gur, D., Sumkin, J. H., Rockette, H. E., Ganott, M., Hakim, C., Hardesty, L., … Wallace, L. (2004). Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96, 185–190. doi:10.1093/jnci/djh067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2005). A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 112, 841–861. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunar, M. A., Rich, A. N., & Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Visual Cognition, 18, 881–897. doi:10.1080/13506280903361988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kundel, H. L., & Nodine, C. F. (1975). Interpreting chest radiographs without visual search. Radiology, 116, 526–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite, F. P., & Ratcliff, R. (2011). What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 651–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackworth, J. F. (1964). The effect of true and false knowledge of results on detectability of signals in a vigilance task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 18, 106–117. doi:10.1037/h0083493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nothdurft, H.-C. (2006). Salience and target selection in visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 514–542. doi:10.1080/13506280500194162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R. (2001). Diffusion and random walk processes. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 3668–3673). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347–356. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 1–17. doi:10.1167/8.15.15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, N. C., & Kunar, M. A. (2012). Colour and spatial cueing in low-prevalence visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1327–1344. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.656662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouten, J. F., & Bekker, J. A. M. (1967). Reaction time and accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 27, 143–153. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(67)90054-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwark, J., Sandry, J., & Dolgov, I. (2013). Evidence for a positive relationship between working-memory capacity and detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search. Perception, 42, 112–114. doi:10.1068/p7386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwark, J., Sandry, J., MacDonald, J., & Dolgov, I. (2012). False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 1583–1589. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0354-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P. L. (1995). Psychophysically principled models of visual simple reaction time. Psychological Review, 102, 567–593. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, and Psychophysics, 71, 541–553. doi:10.3758/APP.71.3.541
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 41, 67–85. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(77)90012-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six view of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625–636. doi:10.3758/BF03196322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33–39. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Guided Search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In W. Gray (Ed.), Integrated models of cognitive systems (pp. 99–119). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, J. M., Vo, M., Evans, K. K., & Greene, M. R. (2011). Visual search in scenes involves selective and non-selective pathways. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar