Cargando…

Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance

Many real-world searches (e.g., radiology and baggage screening) have rare targets. When targets are rare, observers perform rapid, incomplete searches, leading to higher miss rates. To improve search for rare (10% prevalence) targets, we provided eye movement feedback (EMF) to observers during thei...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peltier, Chad, Becker, Mark W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5698387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0083-2
_version_ 1783280752269459456
author Peltier, Chad
Becker, Mark W.
author_facet Peltier, Chad
Becker, Mark W.
author_sort Peltier, Chad
collection PubMed
description Many real-world searches (e.g., radiology and baggage screening) have rare targets. When targets are rare, observers perform rapid, incomplete searches, leading to higher miss rates. To improve search for rare (10% prevalence) targets, we provided eye movement feedback (EMF) to observers during their searches. Although the nature of the EMF varied across experiments, each method informed observers about the regions of the display that had not yet been inspected. We hypothesized that feedback would help guide attention to unsearched areas and increase the proportion of the display searched before making a target-absent response, thereby increasing accuracy. An eye tracker was used to mark fixated areas by either removing a semiopaque gray overlay (Experiments 1 and 4) as portions of the display were fixated or by adding the overlay once the eye left a segment of the image (Experiments 2 and 4). Experiment 3 provided automated EMF, such that a new region was uncovered every 540 milliseconds. Across experiments, we varied whether people searched for “Waldo” in images from “Where’s Waldo?” search books or searched for a T among offset Ls. We found weak evidence that EMF improves accuracy in Experiment 1. However, in the remaining experiments, EMF had no effect (Experiment 4), or even reduced accuracy (Experiments 2 and 3). We conclude that the one positive result we found is likely a Type I error and that the EMF method that we used is unlikely to improve visual search performance. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41235-017-0083-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5698387
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56983872017-12-04 Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance Peltier, Chad Becker, Mark W. Cogn Res Princ Implic Original Article Many real-world searches (e.g., radiology and baggage screening) have rare targets. When targets are rare, observers perform rapid, incomplete searches, leading to higher miss rates. To improve search for rare (10% prevalence) targets, we provided eye movement feedback (EMF) to observers during their searches. Although the nature of the EMF varied across experiments, each method informed observers about the regions of the display that had not yet been inspected. We hypothesized that feedback would help guide attention to unsearched areas and increase the proportion of the display searched before making a target-absent response, thereby increasing accuracy. An eye tracker was used to mark fixated areas by either removing a semiopaque gray overlay (Experiments 1 and 4) as portions of the display were fixated or by adding the overlay once the eye left a segment of the image (Experiments 2 and 4). Experiment 3 provided automated EMF, such that a new region was uncovered every 540 milliseconds. Across experiments, we varied whether people searched for “Waldo” in images from “Where’s Waldo?” search books or searched for a T among offset Ls. We found weak evidence that EMF improves accuracy in Experiment 1. However, in the remaining experiments, EMF had no effect (Experiment 4), or even reduced accuracy (Experiments 2 and 3). We conclude that the one positive result we found is likely a Type I error and that the EMF method that we used is unlikely to improve visual search performance. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41235-017-0083-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2017-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5698387/ /pubmed/29214208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0083-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Peltier, Chad
Becker, Mark W.
Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
title Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
title_full Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
title_fullStr Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
title_full_unstemmed Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
title_short Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
title_sort eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5698387/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0083-2
work_keys_str_mv AT peltierchad eyemovementfeedbackfailstoimprovevisualsearchperformance
AT beckermarkw eyemovementfeedbackfailstoimprovevisualsearchperformance