Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Accuracy is paramount in radiology and security screening, yet many factors undermine success. Target prevalence is a particularly worrisome factor, as targets are rarely present (e.g., the cancer rate in mammography is ~0.5%), and low target prevalence has been linked to increased search errors. More troubling is the fact that specific target types can have extraordinarily low frequency rates (e.g., architectural distortions in mammography—a specific marker of potential cancer—appear in fewer than 0.05% of cases). By assessing search performance across millions of trials from the Airport Scanner smartphone application, we demonstrated that the detection of ultra-rare items was disturbingly poor. A logarithmic relationship between target detection and target frequency (adjusted R² = .92) revealed that ultra-rare items had catastrophically low detection rates relative to targets with higher frequencies. Extraordinarily low search performance for these extraordinarily rare targets—what we term the ultra-rare-item effect—is troubling given that radiological and security-screening searches are primarily ultra-rare-item searches.

Keywords

visual search visual attention visual memory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berbaum

K. S.

(2012). Satisfaction of search experiments in advanced imaging. Proceedings of SPIE, 8291(1), Article 82910V. Retrieved from http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1283355

Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. (2009). Cancer rate (per 1,000 examinations) and cancer detection rate (per 1,000 examinations) for 1,960,150 screening mammography examinations from 2002 to 2006 by age. Retrieved from http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/2009/rate_age.html

Cain

M. S.

Vul

Clark

Mitroff

S. R.

(2012). A Bayesian optimal foraging model of human visual search. Psychological Science, 23, 1047–1054.

Clark

Cain

M. S.

Adamo

S. H.

Mitroff

S. R.

(2012). Overcoming hurdles in translating visual search research between the lab and the field. In Dodd

M. D.

Flowers

J. H.

(Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 59. The influence of attention, learning, and motivation on visual search (pp. 147–181). New York, NY: Springer.

Evans

K. K.

Evered

Tambouret

R. H.

Wilbur

D. C.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2011). Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists’ error rates in screening for cervical cancer. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 135, 1557–1560.

Fleck

M. S.

Mitroff

S. R.

(2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947.

Gur

Bandos

A. I.

Fuhrman

C. R.

Klym

A. H.

King

J. L.

Rockette

H. E.

(2007). Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings. Academic Radiology, 14, 49–53.

Gur

Rockette

H. E.

Armfield

D. R.

Blachar

Bogan

J. K.

Brancatelli

. . . Warfel

T. E.

(2003). Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology, 228, 10–14.

Hofer

Schwaninger

(2005). Using threat image projection data for assessing individual screener performance. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 82, 417–426.

10.

Leber

A. B.

Egeth

H. E.

(2006). Attention on autopilot: Past experience and attentional set. Visual Cognition, 14, 565–583.

11.

Mackworth

(1970). Vigilance and attention. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

12.

Menneer

Donnelly

Godwin

H. J.

Cave

K. R.

(2010). High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 122–144.

13.

Sickles

E. A.

(1986). Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. American Journal of Roentgenology, 146, 661–663.

14.

Wolfe

J. M.

(2012). Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search? Psychological Science, 23, 698–703.

15.

Wolfe

J. M.

Horowitz

T. S.

Kenner

N. M.

(2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440.

16.

Wolfe

J. M.

Horowitz

T. S.

Van Wert

M. J.

Kenner

N. M.

Place

S. S.

Kibbi

(2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623–638.

17.

Wolfe

J. M.

Van Wert

(2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.56 MB

The Ultra-Rare-Item Effect

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material