Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36761717›Full record

ArticlePsychology in Russia : state of the art2022

The Manifestation of Incidental Findings in Different Experimental Visual Search Paradigms.

Olga S Rubtsova, Elena S Gorbunova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Olga S RubtsovaHSE University, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interfaces Users.
Elena S GorbunovaHSE University, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interfaces Users.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Incidental findingsprevalence effectsubsequent search missestarget similarityvisual attentionvisual perceptionvisual search

Identifiers

PMID36761717
PMCPMC9903236

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.