Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41665298›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2026

The influence of visibility and prevalence rate on visual search.

Mathi Manavalan, Vanessa G Lee, Iris Vilares

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Mathi ManavalanDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Vanessa G LeeDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Iris VilaresDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The low prevalence effect, which posits that people are more likely to miss a present target when its prevalence rate is low, has important implications for real-world scenarios such as cancer screening and bomb detection. This effect has primarily been studied under full visibility; however, real-world scenarios often come with incomplete visibility. Occlusion and poor visibility introduce perceptual uncertainty, potentially altering how people decide whether a target is present. Here, we applied Bayesian decision theory to a visual search paradigm with partial occlusion, examining how target prevalence (prior) and the degree of occlusion (likelihood information) affect search decisions. Participants made target present/absent responses to target/distractor stimuli. In Experiment 1, all items were invisible, forcing participants to rely on trial feedback to learn the target's prevalence. Experiment 2 also provided trial feedback, but allowed either a small or large portion of the display to be visible. Target prevalence varied between blocks (high, 50%; low, 25%). Results showed that, when items were entirely hidden, participants learned to probability match the target's prevalence. However, when some items were visible, participants rarely responded present when the target was in the occluded region. Comparing the data with models (e.g., probability matching, Bayesian maximizing) revealed mixed strategies. This study introduces a novel method for investigating visual search under occlusion and suggests that, although people integrate prevalence and sensory input, their decisions are not fully Bayesian.

Indexed as

AttentionPattern Recognition, VisualVisual PerceptionAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41665298
PMCPMC12898924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.