Target prevalence influences decision-making in visual search tasks, making it a crucial area of research. The low prevalence effect (LPE) occurs when lower target prevalence leads to higher miss rates, often due to premature target-absent decisions. This study investigated whether removing the need for an explicit “target-absent” response, using a go/no-go (GNG) response task, can mitigate the LPE by reducing premature decisions. Participants completed either a target-present/absent (PA) response task or a GNG task, with target prevalence set at high (50%) and low (5%) levels. In Experiment 1, the GNG task used an identical trial termination time across participants. In Experiment 2, the trial termination time was customized based on each participant’s performance threshold established prior to the main task. Results showed that the miss rate difference between prevalence conditions was smaller in the GNG task than in the PA task in both experiments. Moreover, customizing trial termination times also reduced the overall miss rate without increasing false alarms. Combining the GNG response type and customized trial termination offers a simple but effective method for improving target detection performance and mitigating the LPE in visual search.
BroadbentD. E.GregoryM. (1965). Effects of noise and of signal rate upon vigilance analysed by means of decision theory. Human Factors, 7(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872086500700207
2.
BuserD.SterchiY.SchwaningerA. (2020). Why stop after 20 minutes? Breaks and target prevalence in a 60-minute X-ray baggage screening task. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 76, 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102897
3.
EvansK. K.BirdwellR. L.WolfeJ. M. (2013). If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One, 8(5), e64366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064366
4.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
GurD.RocketteH. E.WarfelT.LacomisJ. M.FuhrmanC. R. (2003). From the laboratory to the clinic: the “prevalence effect” 1. Academic Radiology, 10(11), 1324–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00466-5
8.
HoutM. C.WalenchokS. C.GoldingerS. D.WolfeJ. M. (2015). Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 977. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000053
9.
IshibashiK.KitaS.WolfeJ. M. (2012). The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0225-4
10.
KosovichevaA.WolfeJ. M.WolfeB. (2023). Taking prevalence effects on the road: Rare hazards are often missed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(1), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02159-0
KunarM. A.RichA. N.WolfeJ. M. (2010). Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Visual cognition, 18(6), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280903361988
13.
KunarM. A.WatsonD. G.Taylor-PhillipsS.WolskaJ. (2017). Low prevalence search for cancers in mammograms: Evidence using laboratory experiments and computer aided detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(4), 369. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000132
14.
LyuW.LevariD. E.NartkerM. S.LittleD. S.WolfeJ. M. (2021). Feedback moderates the effect of prevalence on perceptual decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(6), 1906–1914. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01956-3
15.
MenneerT.BarrettD. J. K.PhillipsL.DonnellyN.CaveK. R. (2007). Costs in searching for two targets: dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(7), 915–932. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1305
16.
MenneerT.DonnellyN.GodwinH. J.CaveK. R. (2010). High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(2), 133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019569
17.
NakashimaR.KobayashiK.MaedaE.YoshikawaT.YokosawaK. (2013). Visual search of experts in medical image reading: the effect of training, target prevalence, and expert knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00166
18.
NakashimaR.WatanabeC.MaedaE.YoshikawaT.MatsudaI.MikiS.YokosawaK. (2015). The effect of expert knowledge on medical search: Medical experts have specialized abilities for detecting serious lesions. Psychological Research, 79(5), 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0616-y
RichA. N.KunarM. A.Van WertM. J.Hidalgo-SoteloB.HorowitzT. S.WolfeJ. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15):15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.15.15
21.
RiegerT.HeilmannL.ManzeyD. (2021). Visual search behavior and performance in luggage screening: effects of time pressure, automation aid, and target expectancy. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00280-7
SchwarkJ.SandryJ.MacDonaldJ.DolgovI. (2012). False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1583–1589. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0354-4
24.
SeeJ. E.HoweS. R.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N. (1995). Meta-analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.230
25.
TaylorJ. E. T.HilcheyM. D.WeidlerB. J.PrattJ. (2022). Eliminating the low-prevalence effect in visual search with a remarkably simple strategy. Psychological Science, 33(5), 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211048485
Van der HeijdenA. H. C.La HeijW. (1982). The array size function in simple visual search tasks: A comparison between “go-no go” and “yes-no” tasks under conditions of high and low target-noise similarity. Psychological Research, 44, 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309330
28.
Van WertM. J.HorowitzT. S.WolfeJ. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.3.541
29.
WangD.KristjanssonA.NakayamaK. (2005). Efficient visual search without top-down or bottom-up guidance. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206488
30.
WolfeJ. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0 a revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200774
WolfeJ. M. (2022). How one block of trials influences the next: persistent effects of disease prevalence and feedback on decisions about images of skin lesions in a large online study. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00362-0.
33.
WolfeJ. M.BrunelliD. N.RubinsteinJ.HorowitzT. S. (2013). Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.3.33
34.
WolfeJ. M.HorowitzT. S.KennerN. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435(7041), 439–440. https://doi.org/10.1038/435439a
35.
WolfeJ. M.HorowitzT. S.Van WertM. J.KennerN. M.PlaceS. S.KibbiN. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.623
36.
WolfeJ. M.Van WertM. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20(2), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.066
37.
ZhangH.HungS. W.ChenY. P.KuJ. W.TsengP.LuY. H.YangC. T. (2023). Hip fracture or not? The reversed prevalence effect among non-experts’ diagnosis. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00455-w
