Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

High target prevalence may reduce the spread of attention during search tasks

  • Published:
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Target prevalence influences many cognitive processes during visual search, including target detection, search efficiency, and item processing. The present research investigated whether target prevalence may also impact the spread of attention during search. Relative to low-prevalence searches, high-prevalence searches typically yield higher fixation counts, particularly during target-absent trials. This may emerge because the attention spread around each fixation may be smaller for high than low prevalence searches. To test this, observers searched for targets within object arrays in Experiments 1 (free-viewing) and 2 (gaze-contingent viewing). In Experiment 3, observers searched for targets in a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) stream at the center of the display while simultaneously processing occasional peripheral objects. Experiment 1 used fixation patterns to estimate attentional spread, and revealed that attention was narrowed during high, relative to low, prevalence searches. This effect was weakened during gaze-contingent search (Experiment 2) but emerged again when eye movements were unnecessary in RSVP search (Experiment 3). These results suggest that, although task demands impact how attention is allocated across displays, attention may also narrow when searching for frequent targets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Experiment materials and data analysis files for this study can be accessed at: https://osf.io/3q4f8/?view_only=6d20e4698184446ea411b8a9f1857ba4.

Notes

  1. We utilize the term “spread of attention” in this paper, as our goal is not to distinguish across these various concepts but to examine how attention generally spreads across space during search as a result of target prevalence.

  2. Both window sizes were chosen arbitrarily and were not derived the estimates of attention spread observed in Experiment 1 as Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted in the same semester.

  3. These rates are slightly different from Experiment 1 to have equal numbers of trial types across blocks.

  4. The medium prevalence condition yielded surprisingly fast “no window” target-absent RTs relative to the other prevalence levels, which is not consistent with most work in the LPE literature. However, it is important to also note that a performance ceiling on raw scores might be present for target-absent RTs when a small gaze window is included. Please refer to Appendix Table 1 and Figs. 14, 15 and 16 for analyses of raw scores and corresponding graphs.

  5. Previous studies have established the low prevalence effect during RSVP searches (e.g., Hout et al., 2015; Peltier & Becker, 2016).

  6. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting an alternative explanation: Given that the central RSVP target is more likely to appear during high-, relative to low-, prevalence searches, it is possible for the target to interfere with and thus displace the representation of the peripheral probe, resulting in lower identification accuracy. The Target Prevalence × Probe Distance interaction remains reliable even when only analyzing target-absent trials, F(2, 188) = 3.37, p = .037, ηp2 = .035, suggesting that the effect is not driven by the target displacing the representation of the peripheral shape.

  7. Note that Wolfe (2021) suggested that, in practice, the attentional FVF and the resolution FVF could be similar to one another as observers are unlikely to attend items they cannot recognize.

References

  • Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(8), 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (1993). The useful field of view test: A new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 64(1), 71–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, K. K., Beard, B. L., Roenker, D. L., Miller, R. L., & Griggs, D. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 5(22), 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). No capture outside the attentional window. Vision Research, 50, 2543–2550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belopolsky, A. V., Zwaan, L., Theeuwes, J., & Kramer, A. F. (2007). The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 934–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G., & A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 105, 14325–14329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, M., & Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 109–127.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crebolder, J. M., Jolicœur, P., & McIlwaine, J. D. (2002). Loci of signal probability effects and of the attentional blink bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 695–716.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, T., Boettcher, S. E. P., & Wolfe, J. M. (2017). One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search. Journal of Vision, 17(11), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, F. L. (1977). Visual conspicuity, visual search and fixation tendencies of the eye. Vision Research, 17, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EriksenSt. James, C. W. J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, K. K., Birdwell, R. L., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013). If you don’t find often, you often don’t find it: Why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLOS ONE, 8(5), e64366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064366

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Failing, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2018). Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 514–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, M., & Mitroff, S. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Thaibsyah, M., & Donnelly, N. (2015). The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search. Psychonomic Bulleting & Review, 22, 469–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Riggs, C. A., Taunton, D., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2016). Understanding the contribution of target repetition and target expectation to the emergence of the prevalence effect in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 809–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Growns, B., Dunn, J. D., Helm, R. K., Towler, A., & Kukucka, J. (2022). The low prevalence effect in fingerprint comparison amongst forensic science trainees and novices. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272338.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Guevara Pinto, J. D., & Papesh, M. H. (2019). Incidental memory following rapid object processing: The role of attention allocation strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(9), 1174–1190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Prevalence in visual search: From the clinic to the lab and back again. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(2), 65–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hout, M. C., Walenchok, S. C., Goldinger, S. D., & Wolfe, J. M. (2015). Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 977–994.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, J., & Olivers, C. N. (2017). On the brink: The impending demise of the item in visual search. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, J., Lund, K., & Skarratt, P. (2020). Medium versus difficult visual search: How a quantitative change in the functional visual field leads to a qualitative difference in performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 118–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishibashi, K., Kita, S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2012). The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishibashi, K., Watanabe, K., Takaoka, Y., Watanabe, T., & Kita, S. (2012). Prevalence effect in haptic search. i-Perception, 3, 495–498.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ivy, S., Rohovit, T., Lavelle, M., Padilla, L., Stefanucci, J., Stokes, D., & Drew, T. (2021). Through the eyes of the expert: Evaluating holistic processing in architects through gaze-contingent viewing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 870–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konkle, T., Brady, T. F., & AlvarezOliva, G. A. A. (2010). Conceptual distinctiveness supports detailed visual long-term memory for real-world objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 558–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, Y., Hanning, N. M., & Carrasco, M (2023). Presaccadic attention sharpens visual acuity. Scientific Reports, 13, 2981.

  • Lau, J. S. H., & Huang, L. (2010). The prevalence effect is determined by past experience, not future prospects. Vision Research, 50, 1469–1474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Madrid, J., & Hout, M. C. (2019). Examining the effects of passive and active strategies on behavior during hybrid visual memory search: Evidence from eye tracking. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, S., & Wyble, B. (2010). The attentional blink: Past, present, and future of a blind spot of perceptual awareness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(6), 947–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menneer, T., Godwin, H. J., Liversedge, S. P., Hillstrom, A. P., Benson, V., Reichle, E. D., & Donnelly, N. (2017). The FVF framework and target prevalence effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, S. R., & Biggs, A. T. (2014). The ultra-rare-item effect: Visual search for exceedingly rare items is highly susceptible to error. Psychological Science, 25(1), 284–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Regan, J. K., Lévy-Schoen, A., & Jacobs, A. M. (1983). The effect of visibility on eye-movements parameters during reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 457–464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2014). Infrequent identity mismatches are frequently undetected. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1335–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papesh, M. H., & Guevara Pinto, J. D. (2019). Spotting rare items makes the brain “blink” harder: Evidence from pupillometry. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(1), 2635–2647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papesh, M. H., Heisick, L. L., & Warner, K. M. (2018). The low-prevalence effect in unfamiliar face-matching: The roles of feedback and criterion shifting. In press at: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(3), 416–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papesh, M. H., Hout, M. C., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Robbins, A., & Lopez, A. (2021). Eye movements reflect expertise development in hybrid search. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, C., & Becker, M. W. (2016). Decision processes in visual search as a function of target prevalence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(9), 1466–1476.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C., Wyble, B., Hagmann, C. E., & McCourt, E. S. (2014). Detecting meaning in RSVP at 13 ms per picture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(2), 270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. F. (1970). Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics, 13, 101–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J., & Zelnisky, G. J. (2017). Adding details to the attentional template offsets search difficulty: Evidence from contralateral delay activity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 429–437.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwark, J., Sandry, J., MacDonald, J., & Dolgov, I. (2012). False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(8), 1583–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwark, J., Macdonald, J., Sandry, J., & Dolgov, I. (2013). Prevalence-based decisions of low-prevalence targets in visual search. Visual Cognition, 21(5), 541–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekuler, R., & Ball, K. (1986). Visual localization: Age and practice. Journal of Optical Society of America, 3(6), 894–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, K. L., Raymond, J. E., & Arnell, K. M. (1994). Attention to visual pattern information produces the attentional blink in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 357–371.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smilek, D., Enns, J. T., Eastwood, J. D., & Merikle, P. M. (2006). Relax! Cognitive strategy influences visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 543–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SR Research Ltd. (2011). SR Research Experiment Builder user manual. SR Research. Retrieved on November 2023 from http://sr-research.jp/support/files/a2ab23fd3769ea34af5d83a3429be0e2.pdf

  • Theios, J., Smith, P. G., Haviland, S. E., Traupmann, J., & Moy, M. C. (1973). Memory scanning as a serial self-terminating process. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97(3), 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(3), 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vater, C., Wolfe, B., & Rosenholtz, R. (2022). Peripheral vision in real-world tasks: A systematic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(5), 1531–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J. (1982). Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Human Factors, 24(6), 683–692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J. (1985). Tunnel vision induced by a foveal load manipulation. Human Factors, 27(2), 221–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J. (1989). Foveal load affects functional field of view. Human Factors, 2(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, B., & Whitney, D. (2014). Facilitating recognition of crowded faces with presaccadic attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(103), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items are often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 623–638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., Brunelli, D. N., Rubinstein, J., & Horowitz, T. S. (2013). Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 33. 1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, B., Dobres, J., Rosenholtz, R., & Reimer, B. (2017). More than the useful field: Considering peripheral vision in driving. Applied Ergonomics, 65, 316–325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, B., Sawyer, B. D., Kosovicheva, A., Reimer, B., & Rosenholtz, R. (2019). Detection of brake lights while distracted: Separating peripheral vision from cognitive load. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2798–2813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, B., Sawyer, B. D., & Rosenholtz, R. (2022). Toward a theory of visual information acquisition in driving. Human Factors, 64(4), 694–713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., Kosovicheva, A., & Wolfe, B. (2022). Normal blindness: When we look but fail to see. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(9), 809–819.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9 Advance online publication

  • Wu, C. C., & Wolfe, J. M. (2022). The functional visual field(s) in simple visual search. Vision Research, 190, 107965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2021.107965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. H., & Hulleman, J. (2013). Eye movements reveal how task difficulty molds visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 168–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Niels Dickson, Abigail Jahnke, Haley Pettingill, Amber Pham, Dilyn Stewart, and Fatima Umaña Hernandez for assistance with data collection. A portion of this research was completed in part to fulfill the first author’s doctoral dissertation requirements at Louisiana State University.

Funding

Provided by the Graduate School at Louisiana State University. This study was not preregistered.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL, USA

    Juan D. Guevara Pinto

  2. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

    Megan H. Papesh

Authors
  1. Juan D. Guevara Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan H. Papesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan D. Guevara Pinto.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 1 Results of analyses on raw scores for Experiment 2
Full size table
Fig. 14
figure 14

Raw scores for the proportion correct responses during visual search across target prevalence conditions and size of gaze-contingent window in Experiment 2. Dark-gray bars indicate trials with no gaze window, light-gray bars indicate trials with a large gaze window, and white bars indicate trials with a small gaze window. The left panel indicates target-present trials and the right panel indicate target-absent trials. Error bars represent ±1 SEM. y-axes begin at chance

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Raw scores for search times (in milliseconds) during visual search across target prevalence conditions and size of gaze-contingent window in Experiment 2. Dark-gray bars indicate trials with no gaze window, light-gray bars indicate trials with a large gaze window, and white bars indicate trials with a small gaze window. The left panel indicates target-present trials and the right-panel indicate target-absent trials. Error bars represent ±1 SEM

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Raw scores for average number of fixations during visual search across target prevalence conditions and size of gaze-contingent window in Experiment 2. Dark-gray bars indicate trials with no gaze window, light-gray bars indicate trials with a large gaze window, and white bars indicate trials with a small gaze window. The left panel indicates target-present trials and the right-panel indicate target-absent trials. Error bars represent ±1 SEM

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pinto, J.D.G., Papesh, M.H. High target prevalence may reduce the spread of attention during search tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys 86, 62–83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02821-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02821-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation