Errors in visual search: How can we reduce them?

Observers routinely make errors in almost any visual search task. In previous online experiments, we found that indiscriminately highlighting all item positions in a noisy search display reduced errors. Here, we conducted two eye-tracking studies to investigate the mechanics of this error reduction: Does cueing direct attention to previously overlooked regions or enhance attention/processing at cued locations? Displays were presented twice. In Experiment 1, for half of the displays, the cue was only presented on the first copy (Cue - noCue) and for the other half, only presented on the second copy (noCue - Cue). Cueing successfully reduced errors but did not significantly affect reaction times (RTs). This contrasts with the online experiment where the cue increased RTs while reducing errors. In Experiment 2, we replicated the design of the online experiment by splitting the displays into noCue - noCue and noCue - Cue pairs. We now found that the cue reduced errors, but increased RTs on trials with high-contrast targets. The eye-tracking data show that participants fixated closer to items and fixation durations were shorter in cued displays. The smaller fixation-item distance reduced search errors, where observers never fixated the target, for low-contrast targets and the remaining low-contrast errors seemed to be recognition errors, where observers looked at the target but too quickly looked away. Taken together, these results suggest the main reason that errors were reduced was because attention was more properly directed to overlooked regions by the cues. Enhancement of attention at the cued areas may have played an auxiliary role.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Attention Perception & Psychophysics
Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-025-03095-6
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Radiology practices and education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.36
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Errors in visual search: How can we reduce them?

Jeremy M. Wolfe, Johan Hulleman, Aoqi Li
1 citations
Attention Perception & Psychophysics
Radiology practices and education
1.36
article

Errors in visual search: How can we reduce them?

Jeremy M. Wolfe, Johan Hulleman, Aoqi Li
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Observers routinely make errors in almost any visual search task. In previous online experiments, we found that indiscriminately highlighting all item positions in a noisy search display reduced errors. Here, we conducted two eye-tracking studies to investigate the mechanics of this error reduction: Does cueing direct attention to previously overlooked regions or enhance attention/processing at cued locations? Displays were presented twice. In Experiment 1, for half of the displays, the cue was only presented on the first copy (Cue - noCue) and for the other half, only presented on the second copy (noCue - Cue). Cueing successfully reduced errors but did not significantly affect reaction times (RTs). This contrasts with the online experiment where the cue increased RTs while reducing errors. In Experiment 2, we replicated the design of the online experiment by splitting the displays into noCue - noCue and noCue - Cue pairs. We now found that the cue reduced errors, but increased RTs on trials with high-contrast targets. The eye-tracking data show that participants fixated closer to items and fixation durations were shorter in cued displays. The smaller fixation-item distance reduced search errors, where observers never fixated the target, for low-contrast targets and the remaining low-contrast errors seemed to be recognition errors, where observers looked at the target but too quickly looked away. Taken together, these results suggest the main reason that errors were reduced was because attention was more properly directed to overlooked regions by the cues. Enhancement of attention at the cued areas may have played an auxiliary role.

Attention Perception & PsychophysicsVol. 87(5)
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), University of Manchester (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Radiology practices and education
1.36
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Errors in visual search: How can we reduce them? — Jeremy M. Wolfe, Johan Hulleman, et al. · Attention Perception & Psychophysics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS