Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29214208›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2017

Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance.

Chad Peltier, Mark W Becker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reducing the low-prevalence effect with probe trials.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026
    Article
  2. The effects of gaze-display feedback on medical students' self-monitoring and learning in radiology.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    Article
  3. Errors in visual search: Are they stochastic or deterministic?Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Chad PeltierDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University Psychology Building, 316 Physics Room 298C, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9318-5005
Mark W BeckerDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State University Psychology Building, 316 Physics Room 298C, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many real-world searches (e.g., radiology and baggage screening) have rare targets. When targets are rare, observers perform rapid, incomplete searches, leading to higher miss rates. To improve search for rare (10% prevalence) targets, we provided eye movement feedback (EMF) to observers during their searches. Although the nature of the EMF varied across experiments, each method informed observers about the regions of the display that had not yet been inspected. We hypothesized that feedback would help guide attention to unsearched areas and increase the proportion of the display searched before making a target-absent response, thereby increasing accuracy. An eye tracker was used to mark fixated areas by either removing a semiopaque gray overlay (Experiments 1 and 4) as portions of the display were fixated or by adding the overlay once the eye left a segment of the image (Experiments 2 and 4). Experiment 3 provided automated EMF, such that a new region was uncovered every 540 milliseconds. Across experiments, we varied whether people searched for "Waldo" in images from "Where's Waldo?" search books or searched for a T among offset Ls. We found weak evidence that EMF improves accuracy in Experiment 1. However, in the remaining experiments, EMF had no effect (Experiment 4), or even reduced accuracy (Experiments 2 and 3). We conclude that the one positive result we found is likely a Type I error and that the EMF method that we used is unlikely to improve visual search performance.

Indexed as

FeedbackTarget prevalenceVisual attentionVisual search

Identifiers

PMID29214208
PMCPMC5698387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.