Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31735825›Full record

ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Using Eye Movements to Understand how Security Screeners Search for Threats in X-Ray Baggage.

Nick Donnelly, Alex Muhl-Richardson, Hayward J Godwin, Kyle R Cave

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Low prevalence targets are primarily missed due to mind wandering.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Improved X-ray baggage screening sensitivity with 'targetless' search training.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Nick DonnellyDepartment of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool L16 9JD, UK.
Alex Muhl-RichardsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5673-4052
Hayward J GodwinPsychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
Kyle R CaveDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been an increasing drive to understand failures in searches for weapons and explosives in X-ray baggage screening. Tracking eye movements during the search has produced new insights into the guidance of attention during the search, and the identification of targets once they are fixated. Here, we review the eye-movement literature that has emerged on this front over the last fifteen years, including a discussion of the problems that real-world searchers face when trying to detect targets that could do serious harm to people and infrastructure.

Indexed as

eye movementssecurity screeningvisual searchX-ray images

Identifiers

PMID31735825
PMCPMC6802782

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.