Jeremy M. Wolfe, Johan Hulleman, Ava Mitra, Wentao Si
{"title":"In simple but challenging search tasks, most errors are stochastic","authors":"Jeremy M. Wolfe, Johan Hulleman, Ava Mitra, Wentao Si","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02938-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In visual search tasks in the lab and in the real world, people routinely miss targets that are clearly visible: so-called look but fail to see (LBFTS) errors. If search displays are shown to the same observer twice, we can ask about the probability of joint errors, where the target is missed both times. If errors are “deterministic,” then the probability of a second error on the same display–given that the target was missed the first time–should be high. If errors are “stochastic,” the probability of joint errors should be the product of the error rate for first and second appearances. Here, we report on two versions of a <i>T</i> among <i>L</i>s search with somewhat degraded letters to make search more difficult. In Experiment 1, <i>T</i>s could either appear amidst crowded “clumps” of <i>L</i>s or more in isolation. Observers made more errors when the <i>T</i> was in a clump, but these errors were mainly stochastic. In Experiment 2, the task was made harder by making <i>T</i>s and <i>L</i>s more similar. Again, errors were predominantly stochastic. If other, socially important errors are also stochastic, this would suggest that “double reading,” where two observers (human or otherwise) look at each stimulus, could reduce overall error rates.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02938-y","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
In visual search tasks in the lab and in the real world, people routinely miss targets that are clearly visible: so-called look but fail to see (LBFTS) errors. If search displays are shown to the same observer twice, we can ask about the probability of joint errors, where the target is missed both times. If errors are “deterministic,” then the probability of a second error on the same display–given that the target was missed the first time–should be high. If errors are “stochastic,” the probability of joint errors should be the product of the error rate for first and second appearances. Here, we report on two versions of a T among Ls search with somewhat degraded letters to make search more difficult. In Experiment 1, Ts could either appear amidst crowded “clumps” of Ls or more in isolation. Observers made more errors when the T was in a clump, but these errors were mainly stochastic. In Experiment 2, the task was made harder by making Ts and Ls more similar. Again, errors were predominantly stochastic. If other, socially important errors are also stochastic, this would suggest that “double reading,” where two observers (human or otherwise) look at each stimulus, could reduce overall error rates.
在实验室和现实世界的视觉搜索任务中,人们经常会错过清晰可见的目标:即所谓的看而不见(LBFTS)错误。如果搜索显示向同一观察者显示两次,我们就可以询问共同错误的概率,即两次都错过目标。如果错误是 "确定性 "的,那么在同一显示屏上出现第二次错误的概率就会很高--因为目标在第一次显示时已经错过了。如果错误是 "随机的",那么共同出错的概率应该是第一次和第二次出错率的乘积。在这里,我们报告了两个版本的 T among Ls 搜索,其中字母的质量有所降低,从而增加了搜索的难度。在实验 1 中,Ts 可以出现在拥挤的 Ls "团块 "中,也可以单独出现。当 T 出现在字母群中时,观察者会出现更多错误,但这些错误主要是随机的。在实验 2 中,Ts 和 Ls 的相似性增加了任务的难度。同样,错误主要是随机的。如果其他重要的社会性错误也是随机的,那么这将表明 "双读",即两个观察者(人类或其他观察者)观察每个刺激物,可以降低总体错误率。
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.