English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Infrequently encountered targets are missed disproportionately often. This low prevalence effect (LPE) is a robust problem with significant societal consquences (Wolfe et al., 2007). Fleck & Mitroff (2007) suggested that the LPE might reflect premature search termination or response errors. Alternative models argue that prevalence influences observers' decision-making criteria and quitting thresholds. In four experiments with nearly 400 participants, we examined the LPE using standard visual search (with eye-tracking), and two variants of a passive RSVP task. In the RSVP task, sequences of stimuli with or without a target are presented to observers who respond present/absent after the sequence ends (following Hout & Goldinger, 2010). In all experiments, people looked for two target categories simultaneously. The low-prevalence target appeared much less often than its counterpart, while overall target prevalence was 50% in all conditions. In some conditions, people searched for the categories " teddy bear " and " butterfly " among other real-world objects. In other conditions, people searched for specific bears or butterflies among distractors from the same two categories. Results: 1) In standard search, we found an RT benefit for high-prevalence targets. They were found more quickly than low-prevalence targets; 2) In passive RSVP search, the LPE persisted, even though participants never had to terminate search on their own (responses were made following presentation of the entire stream); 3) Eye-tracking analyses showed that fast RTs to the high-prevalence item were explained by better attentional guidance, as indicated by scan-path ratios, and faster perceptual decision-making (indexed by post-fixation RTs); and 4) Even when people look directly at low-prevalence targets, they failed to report them on between 12% and 29% of trials (depending on the experiment). These results strongly argue for an attentional account of the LPE. Low-prevalence misses appear to represent failures of attention, rather than early search termination or motor errors.

journal of vision

The low-prevalence effect is due to failures of attention, not premature search termination or motor errors: Evidence from passive search and eye-movements.