ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025
Effects of prevalence and feedback in the identification of blast cells in peripheral blood: expert and novice observers.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low target prevalence affects perceptual decisions on both simple and complex stimuli. Without prior knowledge of how often targets may appear, trial-by-trial accuracy feedback modulates the effects of low prevalence partially by providing observers with information about the target base rate. Using simple colored dots, Lyu (PBR 28:1906-1914, 2021) found that at low prevalence, observers demonstrate a classical low prevalence effect (LPE) when receiving feedback. This involves a conservative shift of the decision criterion where observers are less likely to call an ambiguous item a target. In the absence of feedback, observers adopted more liberal criteria and became more likely to classify an item as a target, producing a Prevalence-Induced Concept Change (PICC, Levari et al., Science 360:1465-1467, 2018). The present study examines whether the effects of low prevalence and feedback are modulated by expertise. Novice (n = 26) and expert (n = 24) observers performed a cancer cell discrimination task. The prevalence of cancerous "blast cells" and the presence or absence of trial-by-trial accuracy feedback were manipulated. Unsurprisingly, medical professionals performed better than trained novices. Importantly, both experts and novices showed an LPE with feedback, although that LPE was weaker in experts, suggesting expertise may modulate the size of the LPE. Low prevalence had little effect on the criterion in the absence of feedback in this setting. For both novices and experts, initial exposure to trials with feedback influenced criteria in subsequent no feedback conditions. Interestingly, experts showed a conservative criterion at the start of the experiment, even without having experienced a feedback block. This could reflect previous training or working in a low prevalence setting. Our study shows the interactions of the effects of low prevalence, feedback, and expertise on perceptual decisions and provides direct evidence for prevalence and feedback effects on expert decisions.
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.