Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search.

Abstract

In visual search, rare targets are missed disproportionately often. This low-prevalence effect (LPE) is a robust problem with demonstrable societal consequences. What is the source of the LPE? Is it a perceptual bias against rare targets or a later process, such as premature search termination or motor response errors? In 4 experiments, we examined the LPE using standard visual search (with eye tracking) and 2 variants of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) in which observers made present/absent decisions after sequences ended. In all experiments, observers looked for 2 target categories (teddy bear and butterfly) simultaneously. To minimize simple motor errors, caused by repetitive absent responses, we held overall target prevalence at 50%, with 1 low-prevalence and 1 high-prevalence target type. Across conditions, observers either searched for targets among other real-world objects or searched for specific bears or butterflies among within-category distractors. We report 4 main results: (a) In standard search, high-prevalence targets were found more quickly and accurately than low-prevalence targets. (b) The LPE persisted in RSVP search, even though observers never terminated search on their own. (c) Eye-tracking analyses showed that high-prevalence targets elicited better attentional guidance and faster perceptual decisions. And (d) even when observers looked directly at low-prevalence targets, they often (12%–34% of trials) failed to detect them. These results strongly argue that low-prevalence misses represent failures of perception when early search termination or motor errors are controlled.

Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target

“…This has been seen in blue jays who will pass over less common prey while foraging for the more common (Bond & Kamil, 2002). Similar effects are seen in search when one target type is rarer than another (Godwin et al, 2015; Hout, Walenchok, Goldinger, & Wolfe, 2015). …”

Implicit object naming in visual search: Evidence from phonological competition

“…First, as specified in many theories (e.g., Duncan & Humphreys, 1989; Wolfe, 2007), visual search involves “resonance-seeking” between targets held in WM and objects in the environment (see also Hout, Walenchok, Goldinger, and Wolfe, 2015). When a person has a search target in mind, attention is drawn toward objects that resemble the target and perceptual processes evaluate those objects as potential matches.…”

Modeling Lag‐2 Revisits to Understand Trade‐Offs in Mixed Control of Fixation Termination During Visual Search

“…The existence of perceptual identification errors has been used as evidence against strict direct‐control accounts, with such occurrences being regarded as a natural by‐product of the fact that fixations can be terminated by an indirect mechanism (e.g., an autonomous timer) that drives fixations to new locations irrespective of whether or not the processing of an object at a given fixation location has been completed. However, more recent studies (Godwin, Menneer, Riggs, Cave, & Donnelly, ; Godwin et al., ; Hout et al., ) have found that perceptual identification errors are more likely to occur when the target is presented on a small proportion of trials (5% of trials) compared with a higher proportion of trials (45%), perhaps because of priming from target repetition and/or expectations about the likelihood of a target being presented (Godwin et al., ,b). This finding suggests that failures to detect the target upon fixating it may reflect object identification failures rather than being a consequence of some indirect mechanism, as predicted by indirect‐control accounts.…”