Cargando…

A novel, unbiased approach to evaluating subsequent search misses in dual target visual search

Research in radiology and visual cognition suggest that finding one target during visual search may result in increased misses for a second target, an effect known as subsequent search misses (SSM). Here, we demonstrate that the common method of calculating second-target detection performance is bia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Becker, Mark W., Anderson, Kaitlyn, Brascamp, Jan W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7536170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32643106
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02085-0
Descripción
Sumario:Research in radiology and visual cognition suggest that finding one target during visual search may result in increased misses for a second target, an effect known as subsequent search misses (SSM). Here, we demonstrate that the common method of calculating second-target detection performance is biased and could produce spurious SSM effects. We describe the source of that bias and document factors that influence its magnitude. We use a modification of signal-detection theory to develop a novel, unbiased method of calculating the expected value for dual-target performance under the null hypothesis. We then apply our novel method to two of our data sets that showed modest SSM effects when calculated in the traditional manner. Our correction reduced the effect size to the point that there was no longer a significant SSM effect. We then applied our method to a published data set that had a larger effect size when calculated using the traditional calculation as well as when using an alternative calculation that was recently proposed to account for biases in the traditional method. We find that both the traditional method and the recently proposed alternative substantially overestimate the magnitude of the SSM effect in these data, but a significant SSM effect persisted even with our calculation. We recommend that future SSM studies use our method to ensure accurate effect-size estimates, and suggest that the method be applied to reanalyze published results, particularly those with small effect sizes, to rule out the possibility that they were spurious.