Adam T. Biggs

Assessing visual search performance differences between Transportation Security Administration Officers and nonprofessional visual searchers

Some visual searches depend upon accuracy (e.g., radiology, airport security screening), and it is important for both theoretical and applied reasons to understand what factors best predict performance. The current study administered a visual search task to both professional (Transportation Security Administration Officers) and nonprofessional (members of Duke University) searchers to examine group differences in which factors predict accuracy. Search speed—time taken to terminate search—was the primary predictor for nonprofessional searchers (accounting for 59% of their accuracy variability) and for the least experienced professional searchers (37% of variability). In contrast, consistency—how similarly (in terms of search speed) an individual spent searching from trial to trial—was the primary predictor for the most experienced professional visual searchers (39% of variability). These results inform cognitive theory by illuminating factors that differentially affect search performance between participants, and real-world issues by identifying search behaviours (consistency in particular) important to experienced professional searchers.

The Ultra-Rare-Item Effect Visual Search for Exceedingly Rare Items Is Highly Susceptible to Error

Accuracy is paramount in radiology and security screening, yet many factors undermine success. Target prevalence is a particularly worrisome factor, as targets are rarely present (e.g., the cancer rate in mammography is ~0.5%), and low target prevalence has been linked to increased search errors. More troubling is the fact that specific target types can have extraordinarily low frequency rates (e.g., architectural distortions in mammography—a specific marker of potential cancer—appear in fewer than 0.05% of cases). By assessing search performance across millions of trials from the Airport Scanner smartphone application, we demonstrated that the detection of ultra-rare items was disturbingly poor. A logarithmic relationship between target detection and target frequency (adjusted R2 = .92) revealed that ultra-rare items had catastrophically low detection rates relative to targets with higher frequencies. Extraordinarily low search performance for these extraordinarily rare targets—what we term the ultra-rare-item effect—is troubling given that radiological and security-screening searches are primarily ultra-rare-item searches.

Different predictors of multiple-target search accuracy between nonprofessional and professional visual searchers

Visual search, locating target items among distractors, underlies daily activities ranging from critical tasks (e.g., looking for dangerous objects during security screening) to commonplace ones (e.g., finding your friends in a crowded bar). Both professional and nonprofessional individuals conduct visual searches, and the present investigation is aimed at understanding how they perform similarly and differently. We administered a multiple-target visual search task to both professional (airport security officers) and nonprofessional participants (members of the Duke University community) to determine how search abilities differ between these populations and what factors might predict accuracy. There were minimal overall accuracy differences, although the professionals were generally slower to respond. However, the factors that predicted accuracy varied drastically between groups; variability in search consistency—how similarly an individual searched from trial to trial in terms of speed—best explained accuracy for professional searchers (more consistent professionals were more accurate), whereas search speed—how long an individual took to complete a search when no targets were present—best explained accuracy for nonprofessional searchers (slower nonprofessionals were more accurate). These findings suggest that professional searchers may utilize different search strategies from those of nonprofessionals, and that search consistency, in particular, may provide a valuable tool for enhancing professional search accuracy.

Competition between color salience and perceptual load during visual selection can be biased by top-down set

Visual salience and perceptual load may both influence the efficiency of visual selection. Recently, Gibson and Bryant (2008) showed that perceptual load can dominate color salience in a distractor interference paradigm. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the possibility that knowledge (of color or load) may modulate the relative operation of these two mechanisms. Consistent with previous findings, perceptual load dominated color salience, but only in certain contexts in which display load was mixed and high-load displays preceded other high-load displays. More important, color salience dominated perceptual load in other contexts in which display load was mixed and low-load displays preceded high-load displays. In addition, color salience also dominated perceptual load in contexts in which display load was fixed and advance knowledge of load was available. Altogether, the present findings suggest that the competition between color salience and perceptual load can vary as a function of task context, thereby supporting top-down accounts, although the precise aspect of task context remains to be identified.

Semantic and Affective Salience: The Role of Meaning and Preference in Attentional Capture and Disengagement

Emotion appears to have a substantial impact on a wide variety of attentional functions. However, stimuli that elicit affective responses also tend to be meaningful. Here we attempted to disentangle the effects of meaning from the effects of affect on attentional capture by irrelevant distractors. Experiment 1 used a previously unfamiliar distractor stimulus, and manipulated the amount of knowledge provided to observers about the distractor. The results suggested that increases in meaning can reduce attentional capture. Experiments 2 and 3 used both familiar and unfamiliar symbols (baseball logos and flags, respectively) as distractors. Critically, of the two familiar symbols, one was rated as affective-positive and the other was rated as affective-negative. As in Experiment 1, the results showed that unfamiliar distractors can capture attention. In addition, the results also suggested that the two affective distractors captured attention (so long as they were sufficiently intense). This finding suggests that while increased knowledge can reduce capture, affect can restore an items ability to capture attention. Finally, the results of Experiment 4 showed that observers were slower to disengage from a negative item than from a positive item. This evidence emphasizes the differential roles of semantic knowledge versus affect on attentional capture.

What Can 1 Billion Trials Tell Us About Visual Search

Mobile technology (e.g., smartphones and tablets) has provided psychologists with a wonderful opportunity: through careful design and implementation, mobile applications can be used to crowd source data collection. By garnering massive amounts of data from a wide variety of individuals, it is possible to explore psychological questions that have, to date, been out of reach. Here we discuss 2 examples of how data from the mobile game Airport Scanner (Kedlin Co., http://www.airportscannergame.com) can be used to address questions about the nature of visual search that pose intractable problems for laboratory-based research. Airport Scanner is a successful mobile game with millions of unique users and billions of individual trials, which allows for examining nuanced visual search questions. The goals of the current Observation Report were to highlight the growing opportunity that mobile technology affords psychological research and to provide an example roadmap of how to successfully collect usable data.

Examining perceptual and conceptual set biases in multiple-target visual search

Visual search is a common practice conducted countless times every day, and one important aspect of visual search is that multiple targets can appear in a single search array. For example, an X-ray image of airport luggage could contain both a water bottle and a gun. Searchers are more likely to miss additional targets after locating a first target in multiple-target searches, which presents a potential problem: If airport security officers were to find a water bottle, would they then be more likely to miss a gun? One hypothetical cause of multiple-target search errors is that searchers become biased to detect additional targets that are similar to a found target, and therefore become less likely to find additional targets that are dissimilar to the first target. This particular hypothesis has received theoretical, but little empirical, support. In the present study, we tested the bounds of this idea by utilizing “big data” obtained from the mobile application Airport Scanner. Multiple-target search errors were substantially reduced when the two targets were identical, suggesting that the first-found target did indeed create biases during subsequent search. Further analyses delineated the nature of the biases, revealing both a perceptual set bias (i.e., a bias to find additional targets with features similar to those of the first-found target) and a conceptual set bias (i.e., a bias to find additional targets with a conceptual relationship to the first-found target). These biases are discussed in terms of the implications for visual-search theories and applications for professional visual searchers.

Visual salience can co-exist with dilution during visual selection.

The perceptual load theory contends that the locus of visual selection is dependent on the availability of perceptual resources, and findings have shown significant distractor interference under conditions of low perceptual load, but not under conditions of high perceptual load. Recently, other researchers have suggested that this pattern of distractor interference may actually be due to changes in the quality of the distractors representation (known as the dilution account) and/or changes in its relative salience (known as the salience account). The present study attempted to advance theoretical understanding of visual selection by comparing the effects of high versus low visual salience while holding the effects of perceptual load and dilution constant. The results of two experiments showed that the relative salience of the distractor influenced the magnitude of distractor interference under these conditions. These results suggest that the effects of visual salience can coexist with the effects of dilution (and load).

Cognitive Training Can Reduce Civilian Casualties in a Simulated Shooting Environment

Shooting a firearm involves a complex series of cognitive abilities. For example, locating an item or a person of interest requires visual search, and firing the weapon (or withholding a trigger squeeze) involves response execution (or inhibition). The present study used a simulated shooting environment to establish a relationship between a particular cognitive ability and a critical shooting error—response inhibition and firing on civilians, respectively. Individual-difference measures demonstrated, perhaps counterintuitively, that simulated civilian casualties were not related to motor impulsivity (i.e., an itchy trigger finger) but rather to an individual’s cognitive ability to withhold an already initiated response (i.e., an itchy brain). Furthermore, active-response-inhibition training reduced simulated civilian casualties, which revealed a causal relationship. This study therefore illustrates the potential of using cognitive training to possibly improve shooting performance, which might ultimately provide insight for military and law-enforcement personnel.

Multiple-Target Visual Search Errors: Overview and Implications for Airport Security

Visual search—the ability to locate visual targets among distractors—is a fundamental part of professional performance for many careers, including radiology, airport security screening, cytology, lifeguarding, and more. Successful execution of visual search in these settings is critically important because the consequences of a missed target can be horrific. Unfortunately, many of these professions place high demands on the people performing the searches, and either the task or the environment (or both) could lead to significant errors. One known source of error that exists across many fields is “multiple-target visual search” errors—a target is less likely to be detected if another target was already found in the same search than if the target was the only one present. These errors have proven to be stubborn and not easily eliminated. This article offers a brief overview of the existing research on multiple-target visual search errors and discusses possible policy implications of the errors for airport security screening. The policy suggestions are based on empirical research, with the hope of providing food for thought on using scientific data and theory to improve performance. Specifically, three policy suggestions are raised: shift screening to a remote location away from the checkpoint, reduce the number of prohibited items to lessen the searchers’ cognitive burden, and emphasize search consistency in the training process. Note that the focus here is on airport security screening, as this is a domain most readers can relate to, but the suggestions can equally apply to many search environments.