A novel, unbiased approach to evaluating subsequent search misses in dual target visual search.
A novel, unbiased approach to evaluating subsequent search misses in dual target visual search.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/s13414-020-02085-0
复制
发表时间：
2020-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Brascamp JW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Becker MW;Anderson K;Brascamp JW
放射学和视觉认知的研究表明，在视觉搜索过程中发现一个目标可能会导致第二个目标的失误增加，这种效应被称为后续搜索失误（SSM）。在这里，我们证明了计算第二目标检测性能的常用方法是有偏差的，可能会产生虚假的SSM效应。我们描述了这种偏见的来源，并记录了影响其大小的因素。我们使用的信号检测理论的修改，开发了一种新的，无偏的方法计算的期望值的双目标性能下的零假设。然后，我们将我们的新方法应用于我们的两个数据集，这些数据集在以传统方式计算时显示出适度的SSM效应。我们的校正将效应量降低到不再有显著的SSM效应的程度。然后，我们将我们的方法应用于一个已发表的数据集，该数据集在使用传统计算以及使用最近提出的用于解释传统方法中的偏倚的替代计算时具有更大的效应量。我们发现，无论是传统的方法和最近提出的替代大大高估了这些数据中的SSM效应的大小，但一个显着的SSM效应持续甚至与我们的计算。我们建议未来的SSM研究使用我们的方法来确保准确的效应量估计，并建议该方法应用于重新分析已发表的结果，特别是那些效应量小的结果，以排除它们是虚假的可能性。
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.