ArticlePsychology in Russia : state of the art2022
The Manifestation of Incidental Findings in Different Experimental Visual Search Paradigms.
Article in Psychology in Russia : state of the art, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incidental findings are items of visual search that are potentially of significance, but were not the main object of the initial search. They have been previously widely discussed in the field of radiology. However, the underlying perceptual mechanisms of such phenomenon are still unclear. Objective: The current study aims to examine incidental findings in different paradigms of visual search in order to reveal their primary perceptual aspects. Design: Two behavioral visual search experiments were conducted. The mixed hybrid search task model was used in the first experiment, while the subsequent search miss effect was employed in the second experiment. The task was to find targets among distractors, according to given instructions. Stimuli material consisted of images of real-life objects that were randomly distributed across the screen for each trial. Results: Accuracy and reaction time of the participants were analyzed in both experiments. Similar effects were observed for both parameters. Specific targets in the first experiment and typical targets in the second experiment were found significantly faster and more accurately in comparison to categorical and atypical targets. Moreover, this tendency did not depend on the order of target identification. Hence, the prevalence of the targets was revealed to be the primary factor in the case of incidental findings. Conclusion: The study revealed the emergence of incidental findings in both experiments. Typical or specific targets were detected significantly more accurately, compared to atypical or categorical targets. Subsequent search misses were not detected, suggesting that target prevalence could be a crucial factor that is specific for incidental findings.
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.