Cue relevance drives early quitting in visual search.


Journal

Cognitive research: principles and implications
ISSN: 2365-7464
Titre abrégé: Cogn Res Princ Implic
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697632

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 30 11 2023
accepted: 08 08 2024
medline: 26 8 2024
pubmed: 26 8 2024
entrez: 25 8 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Irrelevant salient distractors can trigger early quitting in visual search, causing observers to miss targets they might otherwise find. Here, we asked whether task-relevant salient cues can produce a similar early quitting effect on the subset of trials where those cues fail to highlight the target. We presented participants with a difficult visual search task and used two cueing conditions. In the high-predictive condition, a salient cue in the form of a red circle highlighted the target most of the time a target was present. In the low-predictive condition, the cue was far less accurate and did not reliably predict the target (i.e., the cue was often a false positive). These were contrasted against a control condition in which no cues were presented. In the high-predictive condition, we found clear evidence of early quitting on trials where the cue was a false positive, as evidenced by both increased miss errors and shorter response times on target absent trials. No such effects were observed with low-predictive cues. Together, these results suggest that salient cues which are false positives can trigger early quitting, though perhaps only when the cues have a high-predictive value. These results have implications for real-world searches, such as medical image screening, where salient cues (referred to as computer-aided detection or CAD) may be used to highlight potentially relevant areas of images but are sometimes inaccurate.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39183257
doi: 10.1186/s41235-024-00587-1
pii: 10.1186/s41235-024-00587-1
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

54

Subventions

Organisme : National Science Foundation
ID : BCS-2218384

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Adamo, S. H., Gereke, B. J., Shomstein, S., & Schmidt, J. (2021). From “satisfaction of search” to “subsequent search misses”: A review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 6, 1–19.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00318-w
Berbaum, K. S., Krupinski, E. A., Schartz, K. M., Caldwell, R. T., Madsen, M. T., Hur, S., & Franken, E. A., Jr. (2015). Satisfaction of search in chest radiography 2015. Academic Radiology, 22(11), 1457–1465.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.07.011 pubmed: 26363824 pmcid: 4609286
Bruno, M. A., Walker, E. A., & Abujudeh, H. H. (2015). Understanding and confronting our mistakes: The epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics, 35(6), 1668–1676.
doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150023 pubmed: 26466178
Castella, C., Kinkel, K., Descombes, F., Eckstein, M. P., Sottas, P. E., Verdun, F. R., & Bochud, F. O. (2008). Mammographic texture synthesis: Second-generation clustered lumpy backgrounds using a genetic algorithm. Optics Express, 16(11), 7595–7607.
doi: 10.1364/OE.16.007595 pubmed: 18545466
Chan, L. K., & Hayward, W. G. (2013). Visual search. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, 4(4), 415–429.
doi: 10.1002/wcs.1235 pubmed: 26304227
Cousineau, D., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). Termination of a visual search with large display size effects. Spatial Vision, 17(4), 327–352.
doi: 10.1163/1568568041920104 pubmed: 15559108
Cox, P. H., Kravitz, D. J., & Mitroff, S. R. (2021). Great expectations: Minor differences in initial instructions have a major impact on visual search in the absence of feedback. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 6, 1–14.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00286-1
Drew, T., Cunningham, C., & Wolfe, J. M. (2012). When and why might a computer-aided detection (CAD) system interfere with visual search? An eye-tracking study. Academic Radiology, 19(10), 1260–1267.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.05.013 pubmed: 22958720 pmcid: 3438519
Fenton, J. J., Abraham, L., Taplin, S. H., Geller, B. M., Carney, P. A., D’Orsi, C., … & Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. (2011). Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(15), 1152–1161.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr206
Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18(11), 943–947.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02006.x pubmed: 17958706
Gureckis, T. M., Martin, J., McDonnell, J., Rich, A. S., Markant, D., Coenen, A., & Chan, P. (2016). psiTurk: An open-source framework for conducting replicable behavioral experiments online. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 829–842.
doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0642-8 pubmed: 26428910
Helbren, E., Fanshawe, T. R., Phillips, P., Mallett, S., Boone, D., Gale, A., & Halligan, S. (2015). The effect of computer-aided detection markers on visual search and reader performance during concurrent reading of CT colonography. European Radiology, 25, 1570–1578.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3569-z pubmed: 25577518
JASP Team. (2018). JASP (Version 0.9) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/ .
Kunar, M. A. (2022). The optimal use of computer aided detection to find low prevalence cancers. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 7(1), 1–18.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-022-00361-1
Kunar, M. A., & Watson, D. G. (2023). Framing the fallibility of computer-aided detection aids cancer detection. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 8(1), 30.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-023-00485-y pubmed: 37222932 pmcid: 10209366
Kunar, M. A., Watson, D. G., Taylor-Phillips, S., & Wolska, J. (2017). Low prevalence search for cancers in mammograms: Evidence using laboratory experiments and computer aided detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(4), 369–385.
pubmed: 28541075
Lawrence, R. K., Paas, K. H., Cochrane, B. A., & Pratt, J. (2023). Delayed onsets are not necessary for generating distractor quitting thresholds effects in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85, 1–8.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-023-02734-0
Lawrence, R. K., & Pratt, J. (2022). Salience matters: Distractors may, or may not, speed target-absent searches. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84, 1–12.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-021-02406-x
Le-Hoa Võ, M., & Wolfe, J. M. (2015). The role of memory for visual search in scenes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1339(1), 72–81.
doi: 10.1111/nyas.12667 pubmed: 25684693
Lui, L., Pratt, J., & Lawrence, R. K. (2023). The effect of prevalence on distractor speeded search termination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31, 1–9.
Moher, J. (2020). Distracting objects induce early quitting in visual search. Psychological Science, 31(1), 31–42.
doi: 10.1177/0956797619886809 pubmed: 31747351
Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2016). Decision processes in visual search as a function of target prevalence. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 42(9), 1466–1476.
doi: 10.1037/xhp0000248 pubmed: 27149294
Rauschecker, A. M., Rudie, J. D., Xie, L., Wang, J., Duong, M. T., Botzolakis, E. J., & Gee, J. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence system approaching neuroradiologist-level differential diagnosis accuracy at brain MRI. Radiology, 295(3), 626–637.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020190283 pubmed: 32255417
Russell, N. C., & Kunar, M. A. (2012). Colour and spatial cueing in low-prevalence visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(7), 1327–1344.
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.656662
Schwark, J. D., MacDonald, J., Sandry, J., & Dolgov, I. (2013). Prevalence-based decisions undermine visual search. Visual Cognition, 21(5), 541–568.
doi: 10.1080/13506285.2013.811135
Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(6), 599–606.
doi: 10.3758/BF03211656
United States Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Enabled Medical Devices. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-aiml-enabled-medical-devices .
Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 47(3), 631–650.
doi: 10.1080/14640749408401131
Waite, S., Farooq, Z., Grigorian, A., Sistrom, C., Kolla, S., Mancuso, A., & Macknik, S. L. (2020). A review of perceptual expertise in radiology-how it develops, how we can test it, and why humans still matter in the era of artificial intelligence. Academic Radiology, 27(1), 26–38.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.08.018 pubmed: 31818384
Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1060–1092.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
Wolfe, J. M., Evans, K. K., Drew, T., Aizenman, A., & Josephs, E. (2016). How do radiologists use the human search engine? Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 169(1–4), 24–31.
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv501 pubmed: 26656078 pmcid: 4911962
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(4), 623–638.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623 pubmed: 17999575 pmcid: 2662480
Wolfe, J. M., Palmer, E. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2010). Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search. Vision Research, 50(14), 1304–1311.
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.002 pubmed: 19895828
Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20(2), 121–124.
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066 pubmed: 20079642
Wu, Y., & Pan, Y. (2022). The presence of a distractor matching the content of working memory induces delayed quitting in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84(3), 760–770.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-022-02477-4

Auteurs

Jeff Moher (J)

Psychology Department, Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Avenue, New London, CT, 06320, USA. jmoher@conncoll.edu.

Anna Delos Reyes (A)

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.

Trafton Drew (T)

Sirona Medical, San Francisco, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH