How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors

Visual search, finding targets among distractors, is theoretically interesting and practically important as it involves many cognitive abilities and is vital for several critical industries (e.g., radiology, baggage screening). Unfortunately, search is especially error prone when more than one targe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Adamo, S.H (Author), Cox, P.H (Author), Kravitz, D.J (Author), Mitroff, S.R (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer New York LLC 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 02603nam a2200301Ia 4500
001 10.3758-s13414-019-01802-8
008 220511s2019 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 19433921 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors 
260 0 |b Springer New York LLC  |c 2019 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01802-8 
520 3 |a Visual search, finding targets among distractors, is theoretically interesting and practically important as it involves many cognitive abilities and is vital for several critical industries (e.g., radiology, baggage screening). Unfortunately, search is especially error prone when more than one target is present in a display (a phenomenon termed the satisfaction of search effect or the subsequent search miss effect). The general effect is that observers are more likely to miss a second target if a first was already detected. Unpacking the underlying mechanisms requires two key aspects in analysis and design. First, to speak to the “subsequent” nature of the effect, the analyses must compare performance on single-target trials to performance for a second target in dual-target displays after a first has been found. Second, the design must include single-target displays that are matched in difficulty to each dual-target display to enable fair comparisons. However, it is not clear that prior research has met these two standards simultaneously. Work from academic radiology has primarily used designs with well-matched single- and dual-target trials, but most employed analyses that do not focus solely on performance after a first target has been detected. Work from cognitive psychology has generally performed the correct analyses, but relied on unmatched single- and dual-target trials, introducing a confound that could distort the results. In the current paper, we demonstrate the impact of this confound in empirical data and provide a roadmap for proper study design and analyses. © 2019, The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 
650 0 4 |a experimental error 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a methodology 
650 0 4 |a Models, Psychological 
650 0 4 |a pattern recognition 
650 0 4 |a Pattern Recognition, Visual 
650 0 4 |a psychological model 
650 0 4 |a Research Design 
650 0 4 |a Scientific Experimental Error 
650 0 4 |a Visual search 
700 1 |a Adamo, S.H.  |e author 
700 1 |a Cox, P.H.  |e author 
700 1 |a Kravitz, D.J.  |e author 
700 1 |a Mitroff, S.R.  |e author 
773 |t Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics