Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34455466›Full record

ReviewCognitive research: principles and implications2021

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

Stephen H Adamo, Brian J Gereke, Sarah Shomstein, Joseph Schmidt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Recognition and reporting of vertebral fractures in thoracic and abdominal computed tomography images - have we learnt our lesson?Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cue relevance drives early quitting in visual search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  16. Inattentional blindness in medicine.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. When Nurses in an Emergency Situation Look for a Medical Item But Fail to See It.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Observational
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.

Stephen H AdamoDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA. stephen.adamo@ucf.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7617-757X
Brian J GerekeDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.
Sarah ShomsteinDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, The George Washington University, Washington, USA.
Joseph SchmidtDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA.

Funding

Visual search following explicit or implicit category rule trainingR15EY029511 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA · PI SCHMIDT, JOSEPH C · 2018 to 2019
$398k
National Science Foundation 1911776NEI NIH HHS R15 EY029511
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Personal SatisfactionRadiologyAttentionCognitive ScienceEye MovementsAttentional templateMultiple-target searchSatisfaction of searchSubsequent search missesVisual search

Identifiers

PMID34455466
PMCPMC8403090

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.