Signal Probability and Vigilance: A Reappraisal of the ‘Signal‐rate’ Effect

Baddeley, Alan; Colquhoun, W. P.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01189.x

Cited by 66 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been widely demonstrated that low signal probability reduces hit rates in classical low event-rate, low cognitive-load vigilance tasks by shifting criterion rather than by decreasing sensitivity (Baddeley & Colquhoun, 1969;Davies & Parasuraman, 1982;Parasuraman & Davies, 1976;Williges, 1973), and these effects are accompanied by a slowing of ''yes'' reaction times and speeding of ''no'' reaction times (Parasuraman & Davies, 1976), similar to the pattern we observe in visual search (Wolfe et al, 2005;Van Wert, Horowitz, & Wolfe, 2009). Thus, prevalence effects may be a more general phenomenon, applying across many cognitive domains.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too

Wolfe

Brunelli²,

Rubinstein³

et al. 2013

Journal of Vision

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many socially important search tasks are characterized by low target prevalence, meaning that targets are rarely encountered. For example, transportation security officers (TSOs) at airport checkpoints encounter very few actual threats in carry-on bags. In laboratory-based visual search experiments, low prevalence reduces the probability of detecting targets (Wolfe, Horowitz, & Kenner, 2005). In the lab, this "prevalence effect" is caused by changes in decision and response criteria (Wolfe & Van Wert, 2010) and can be mitigated by presenting a burst of high-prevalence search with feedback (Wolfe et al., 2007). The goal of this study was to see if these effects could be replicated in the field with TSOs. A total of 125 newly trained TSOs participated in one of two experiments as part of their final evaluation following training. They searched for threats in simulated bags across five blocks. The first three blocks were low prevalence (target prevalence ≤ .05) with no feedback; the fourth block was high prevalence (.50) with full feedback; and the final block was, again, low prevalence. We found that newly trained TSOs were better at detecting targets at high compared to low prevalence, replicating the prevalence effect. Furthermore, performance was better (and response criterion was more "liberal") in the low-prevalence block that took place after the high-prevalence block than in the initial three low-prevalence blocks, suggesting that a burst of high-prevalence trials may help alleviate the prevalence effect in the field.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too

Wolfe

Brunelli²,

Rubinstein³

et al. 2013

Journal of Vision

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Training screens contained a higher percentage of defects than experimental screens. Some researchers have found that higher defect rates lead to better signal detection (e.g., Baddeley & Colquhoun, 1969;Colquhoun, 1961;Fortune, 1979;Harris, 1968). In addition, participants received immediate feedback during training but did not receive feedback during the experimental session.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Alternative Activities on Time Allocated to Task Performance Under Different Percentages of Incentive Pay

Matthews¹,

Dickinson²

2000

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Do dramatic differences in target prevalence affect our ability to effectively search for that target? The vigilance literature suggests that the answer would be “yes; rare items are likely to be found less often” (Baddeley & Colquhoun, 1969; Colquhoun & Baddeley, 1967) but in those experiments, observers are looking for transient stimuli. In screening tasks, experts are examining complex images that remain present until they choose to move on to the next image.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use-inspired basic research in medical image perception

Wolfe

2016

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal is dedicated to “use-inspired basic research” where a problem in the world shapes the hypotheses for a study in the laboratory. This brief review presents several examples of “use-inspired basic research” in the area of medical image perception. These are cases where the field of radiology raises an interesting issue in visual cognition. Basic research on those issues may then lead to proposals to improve performance on clinical tasks in medical image perception. Of the six examples given here, the first three ask essentially perceptual questions: How can stereopsis improve medical image perception? How shall we assess the tradeoff between radiation dose and image quality? How does the choice of colors change the interpretation of medical images? The second three examples address attentional issues in those aspects of radiology that can be described as visual search problems: Can eye tracking help us understand errors in radiologic search? What happens if the number of targets in an image is unknown? What happens if, as in radiology screening programs, the target of search is very rare?

show abstract

Signal Probability and Vigilance: A Reappraisal of the ‘Signal‐rate’ Effect

Cited by 66 publications

References 6 publications

Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too

Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too

Effects of Alternative Activities on Time Allocated to Task Performance Under Different Percentages of Incentive Pay

Use-inspired basic research in medical image perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About