Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Aug 28;6(1):59.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00318-w.

From "satisfaction of search" to "subsequent search misses": a review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science

Affiliations
Review

From "satisfaction of search" to "subsequent search misses": a review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science

Stephen H Adamo et al. Cogn Res Princ Implic. .

Abstract

For over 50 years, the satisfaction of search effect has been studied within the field of radiology. Defined as a decrease in detection rates for a subsequent target when an initial target is found within the image, these multiple target errors are known to underlie errors of omission (e.g., a radiologist is more likely to miss an abnormality if another abnormality is identified). More recently, they have also been found to underlie lab-based search errors in cognitive science experiments (e.g., an observer is more likely to miss a target 'T' if a different target 'T' was detected). This phenomenon was renamed the subsequent search miss (SSM) effect in cognitive science. Here we review the SSM literature in both radiology and cognitive science and discuss: (1) the current SSM theories (i.e., satisfaction, perceptual set, and resource depletion theories), (2) the eye movement errors that underlie the SSM effect, (3) the existing efforts tested to alleviate SSM errors, and (4) the evolution of methodologies and analyses used when calculating the SSM effect. Finally, we present the attentional template theory, a novel mechanistic explanation for SSM errors, which ties together our current understanding of SSM errors and the attentional template literature.

Keywords: Attentional template; Multiple-target search; Satisfaction of search; Subsequent search misses; Visual search.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sample Single-target Display, Dual-target Display, and Hit Rate Graph for an SSM task: In a standard cognitive science SSM task, observers are asked to search in simplified-search displays for ‘T’ shaped targets (where the crossbars of the two perpendicular rectangles perfectly bisect one another) amongst pseudo ‘L’ shaped distractors (two perpendicular rectangles do not perfectly bisect one another). Search items are typically randomized for rotation (e.g., 0, 90, 180, or 270 from a canonical ‘T’ shape) and location within the search display. Search items may also vary in “salience” (e.g., a darker gray or light gray color amongst a white background), which allows researchers to compare the hit rate of a specific type of target (e.g., low-salience ‘T’) between single and dual-target displays to calculate the SSM effect. The graph above depicts a typical SSM effect with a lower hit rate for a low-salience ‘T’ when it appeared in a dual-target display compared to when a low-salience ‘T’ appeared in a single-target display. These hypothetical results suggest that the detection of the low-salience target ‘T’ was affected by the detection of the high-salience target ‘T’ compared to when it was by itself in a search display (e.g., Fleck et al., 2010)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A. Attentional Template Theory Tenets. The tenets of the Attentional Template theory were motivated by the SSM error literature and the broader visual working memory, attention, and visual search literature (see Tenets 1, 2, and 3 subsections below). B. Time Course of the Fluctuation of Working Memory and Attentional Resources. The battery illustration depicts the capacity limitations of visual working memory and attention. The double-sided arrows between the batteries illustrate the flow of a shared cognitive resource that underlies both visual working memory and attention, and that when one cognitive process is prioritized, the remaining cognitive process is hindered. After first target detection, visual working memory resources are prioritized to maintain the first target as an attentional template. Consequently, there are fewer attentional resources available, which will overall decrease the probability of additional target detection. Detection for similar targets after detecting a first target will be better compared to dissimilar targets because a first target attentional template will prime attention towards similar targets. Over time the first target may lose its prioritization as the attentional template, which will free up visual working memory resulting in improved and unbiased detection for similar and dissimilar targets

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adamo SH, Cain MS, Mitroff SR. Self-induced attentional blink: A cause of errors in multiple-target visual search. Psychological Science. 2013;24(12):2569–2574. doi: 10.1177/0956797613497970. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamo SH, Cain MS, Mitroff SR. Targets need their own personal space: The effects of clutter on multiple-target search accuracy. Perception. 2015;44(10):1203–1214. doi: 10.1177/0301006615594921. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamo SH, Cain MS, Mitroff SR. An individual differences approach to multiple-target visual search errors: How search errors relate to different characteristics of attention. Vision Research. 2017;141:258–265. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.10.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamo, S. H., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2018). Satisfaction at last: Evidence for the “satisfaction” account for multiple-target search errors. In Proceedings of the SPIE: Medical imaging, image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment, 105770A. 10.1117/12.2293692.
    1. Adamo SH, Cox PH, Kravitz DJ, Mitroff SR. How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search misses. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. 2019;81(8):2648–2657. doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01802-8. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources