Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40500559›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025

Location probability learning in visual search of targets with low prevalence.

Emma C Holtz, Vanessa G Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. 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.

Emma C HoltzDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, S506 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. holtz257@umn.edu.
Vanessa G LeeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, S506 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual search is a daily activity, yet people often miss targets when they occur infrequently, leading to costly errors, such as overlooking rare cancerous tumors during routine screenings. Previous research on this low-prevalence effect (LPE) has focused on situations where the target can appear anywhere in the visual field, raising questions about how the LPE interacts with other statistical learning mechanisms. This study examines how people integrate a search target's spatial probability with its prevalence rate. In two experiments, participants searched for a target present either 50% (high prevalence) or 10% (low prevalence) of the time. When present, the target disproportionately appeared in one visual quadrant, allowing participants to learn its spatial probability. We tested whether participants could learn this spatial probability and if learning was affected by the target's prevalence rate. Results showed that participants prioritized high-probability spatial locations under both prevalence conditions. When tested in a neutral phase with an even spatial distribution and a 50% target prevalence, the two experiments showed equivalent probability learning, indicating that neither short-term repetition (stronger in high prevalence) nor spaced learning (more likely in low prevalence) was significant. Miss rates were higher during low-prevalence training, but the LPE was smaller in high-probability target locations. These findings suggest that prevalence rates and spatial probability have independent effects, and the LPE may be reduced in high-probability locations.

Indexed as

AttentionOrientationPattern Recognition, VisualProbability LearningAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeYoung AdultLow prevalence effectProbability cuingSpatial learningVisual search

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.