Activation thresholds, not quitting thresholds, account for the low prevalence effect in dynamic search.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY
Mark W Becker, Andrew Rodriguez, Jeffrey Bolkhovsky, Chad Peltier, Sylvia B Guillory
{"title":"Activation thresholds, not quitting thresholds, account for the low prevalence effect in dynamic search.","authors":"Mark W Becker, Andrew Rodriguez, Jeffrey Bolkhovsky, Chad Peltier, Sylvia B Guillory","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02919-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The low-prevalence effect (LPE) is the finding that target detection rates decline as targets become less frequent in a visual search task. A major source of this effect is thought to be that fewer targets result in lower quitting thresholds, i.e., observers respond target-absent after looking at fewer items compared to searches with a higher prevalence of targets. However, a lower quitting threshold does not directly account for an LPE in searches where observers continuously monitor a dynamic display for targets. In these tasks there are no discrete \"trials\" to which a quitting threshold could be applied. This study examines whether the LPE persists in this type of dynamic search context. Experiment 1 was a 2 (dynamic/static) x 2 (10%/40% prevalence targets) design. Although overall performance was worse in the dynamic task, both tasks showed a similar magnitude LPE. In Experiment 2, we replicated this effect using a task where subjects searched for either of two targets (Ts and Ls). One target appeared infrequently (10%) and the other moderately (40%). Given this method of manipulating prevalence rate, the quitting threshold explanation does not account for the LPE even for static displays. However, replicating Experiment 1, we found an LPE of similar magnitude for both search scenarios, and lower target detection rates with the dynamic displays, demonstrating the LPE is a potential concern for both static and dynamic searches. These findings suggest an activation threshold explanation of the LPE may better account for our observations than the traditional quitting threshold model.</p>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02919-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The low-prevalence effect (LPE) is the finding that target detection rates decline as targets become less frequent in a visual search task. A major source of this effect is thought to be that fewer targets result in lower quitting thresholds, i.e., observers respond target-absent after looking at fewer items compared to searches with a higher prevalence of targets. However, a lower quitting threshold does not directly account for an LPE in searches where observers continuously monitor a dynamic display for targets. In these tasks there are no discrete "trials" to which a quitting threshold could be applied. This study examines whether the LPE persists in this type of dynamic search context. Experiment 1 was a 2 (dynamic/static) x 2 (10%/40% prevalence targets) design. Although overall performance was worse in the dynamic task, both tasks showed a similar magnitude LPE. In Experiment 2, we replicated this effect using a task where subjects searched for either of two targets (Ts and Ls). One target appeared infrequently (10%) and the other moderately (40%). Given this method of manipulating prevalence rate, the quitting threshold explanation does not account for the LPE even for static displays. However, replicating Experiment 1, we found an LPE of similar magnitude for both search scenarios, and lower target detection rates with the dynamic displays, demonstrating the LPE is a potential concern for both static and dynamic searches. These findings suggest an activation threshold explanation of the LPE may better account for our observations than the traditional quitting threshold model.

激活阈值,而非退出阈值,是动态搜索中低流行率效应的原因。
低流行率效应(LPE)是指在视觉搜索任务中,目标出现的频率越低,目标检测率就越低。这种效应的一个主要原因被认为是目标越少,退出阈值就越低,也就是说,与目标较多的搜索相比,观察者在看了较少的项目后就会做出目标不存在的反应。然而,在观察者持续监控动态显示目标的搜索中,较低的退出阈值并不能直接解释 LPE。在这些任务中,并不存在可以应用退出阈值的离散 "试验"。本研究将探讨在这类动态搜索情境中,LPE 是否会持续存在。实验 1 采用了 2(动态/静态)x 2(10%/40% 目标)设计。虽然动态任务的总体成绩较差,但两项任务都显示出了相似程度的 LPE。在实验 2 中,我们使用受试者从两个目标(Ts 和 Ls)中任选一个进行搜索的任务复制了这一效果。其中一个目标出现的频率较低(10%),而另一个目标出现的频率较高(40%)。考虑到这种操纵出现率的方法,即使在静态显示中,戒断阈值的解释也无法解释 LPE。然而,在重复实验 1 时,我们发现两种搜索情况下的 LPE 大小相似,而动态显示的目标检测率较低,这表明 LPE 是静态和动态搜索的潜在问题。这些发现表明,对 LPE 的激活阈值解释可能比传统的戒断阈值模型更能解释我们的观察结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信