↓ Skip to main content

Individual differences predict low prevalence visual search performance

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Individual differences predict low prevalence visual search performance
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0042-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chad Peltier, Mark W. Becker

Abstract

Critical real-world visual search tasks such as radiology and baggage screening rely on the detection of rare targets. When targets are rare, observers search for a relatively short amount of time and have a high miss rate, a pattern of results known as the low prevalence effect. Attempts to improve the search for rare targets have been unsuccessful or resulted in an increase in detections at the price of more false alarms. As an alternative to improving visual search performance through experimental manipulations, an individual differences approach found that those with higher working memory capacity were better at finding rare targets. We build on the individual differences approach and assess 141 observers' visual working memory capacity (vWMC), vigilance, attentional control, big five personality traits, and performance in both high and low prevalence search tasks. vWMC, vigilance, attentional control, high prevalence visual search performance, and level of introversion were all significant predictors of low prevalence search accuracy, and together account for more than 50% of the variance in search performance. With the exception of vigilance, these factors are also significant predictors of reaction time; better performance was associated with longer reaction times, suggesting these factors identify observers who maintain relatively high quitting thresholds, even with low target prevalence. Our results suggest that a quick and easy-to-administer battery of tasks can identify observers who are likely to perform well in low prevalence search tasks, and these predictor variables are associated with higher quitting thresholds, leading to higher accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 57%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,787,766
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#248
of 319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,710
of 420,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.