ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Reducing the low prevalence effect: Does similarity search translate to binary decisions?
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What happens next in dynamic natural scenes: Temporal discrimination is modulated by motion and scene context but not stereoscopic depth.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Reducing the low-prevalence effect with probe trials.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
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
Abstract
In visual search, observers often miss rare targets. This low prevalence effect (LPE) is resistant to many cognitive interventions. However, a recent study showed that having participants identify the item that was most similar to the target (similarity search) eliminated the LPE. As real-world searches often require binary decisions (e.g., is there a threat in this bag?) we tested whether the benefits of similarity search generalize to binary decisions and to more naturalistic stimuli. Participants searched for T shapes amongst near-T distractors and the prevalence of true Ts was manipulated. In the similarity-search-only condition, participants clicked on the "most T-like object." In the similarity search & binary decision condition, participants additionally reported whether the chosen item was a true T (yes/no). We found that in some circumstances, similarity search can be used to attenuate the LPE. However, there was an LPE for the binary decision task. Participants were less likely to classify the target as a true T during low prevalence compared with high. We replicated this result in an additional experiment using more naturalistic stimuli. Participants watched clips of road videos and clicked on the "most hazardous location" in the video, followed by a binary decision ("would you need to respond to that hazard? yes/no"). Though participants located the hazards regardless of prevalence, there was an LPE for the binary decision task. Together, these results indicate potential limitations in applying similarity search outside the laboratory; the LPE is still seen in these searches if a binary decision is involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40360865What 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.