ArticleJournal of vision2025
Optimal visual search with highly heuristic decision rules.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Target identification under high levels of amplitude, size, orientation and background uncertainty.Journal of vision · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual search is a fundamental natural task for humans and other animals. We investigated the decision processes that humans use in covert (single fixation) search with briefly presented displays having well-separated potential target locations. Performance was compared with the Bayesian-optimal decision process under the assumption that the information from the different potential target locations is statistically independent. Surprisingly, humans performed slightly better than optimal, despite humans' substantial loss of sensitivity in the fovea ("foveal neglect") and the implausibility of the human brain replicating the optimal computations. We show that three factors can quantitatively explain these seemingly paradoxical results. Most importantly, simple and fixed heuristic decision rules reach near optimal search performance. Second, foveal neglect primarily affects only the central potential target location. Finally, spatially correlated neural noise can cause search performance to exceed that predicted for independent noise. These findings have broad implications for understanding visual search tasks and other identification tasks in humans and other animals.
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.