ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023
Taking prevalence effects on the road: Rare hazards are often missed.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can unreliable auditory hazard warnings help the driver? The effect of timing errors and false alarms on road hazard detection in dynamic road scenes.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Reducing the low-prevalence effect with probe trials.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Intrinsic motivation and false feedback reduce the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Floor Eggs in Australian Cage-Free Egg Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Highly dangerous road hazards are not immune from the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Rethinking Distraction.Visual cognition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.