Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35953668›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023

Taking prevalence effects on the road: Rare hazards are often missed.

Anna Kosovicheva, Jeremy M Wolfe, Benjamin Wolfe

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Reducing the low-prevalence effect with probe trials.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026
    Article
  3. Intrinsic motivation and false feedback reduce the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025
    Article
  4. Floor Eggs in Australian Cage-Free Egg Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  5. Highly dangerous road hazards are not immune from the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  6. Rethinking Distraction.Visual cognition · 2024
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna KosovichevaDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada. a.kosovicheva@utoronto.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5219-3006
Jeremy M WolfeBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6475-1984
Benjamin WolfeDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9921-8795
University of Toronto · CABrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

Prevalence effects in visual search: Theoretical and practical implicationsR01EY017001 · NEI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Jeremy M Wolfe · 2007 to 2026
$8.2M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY017001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work has shown that, in many visual search and detection tasks, observers frequently miss rare but important targets, like weapons in bags or abnormalities in radiological images. These prior studies of the low-prevalence effect (LPE) use static stimuli and typically permitted observers to search at will. In contrast, many real-world tasks, like looking for dangerous behavior on the road, only afford observers a brief glimpse of a complex, changing scene before they must make a decision. Can the LPE be a factor in in dynamic, time-limited moments of real driving? To test this, we developed a novel hazard-detection task that preserves much of the perceptual richness and complexity of hazard detection in the real world, while allowing for experimental control over event prevalence. Observers viewed brief video clips of road scenes recorded from dashboard cameras and reported whether they saw a hazardous event. In separate sessions, the prevalence of these events was either high (50% of videos) or low (4%). Under low prevalence, observers missed hazards at more than twice the rate observed in the high-prevalence condition. Follow-up experiments demonstrate that this elevation of miss rate at low prevalence persists when participants were allowed to correct their responses, increases as hazards become increasingly rare (down to 1% prevalence) and is resistant to simple cognitive intervention (participant prebriefing). Together, our results demonstrate that the LPE generalizes to complex perceptual decisions in dynamic natural scenes, such as driving, where observers must monitor and respond to rare hazards.

Indexed as

Automobile DrivingVisual PerceptionAttentionHumansPrevalenceDrivingPrevalenceRoad hazardsVisual attention

Identifiers

PMID35953668
PMCPMC9918605
OpenAlexW4290999867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.