Cue relevance drives early quitting in visual search.
Attentional capture
CAD
Cues
Early quitting
Salient distractors
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
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
54Subventions
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