Search for the Unknown: Guidance of Visual Search in the Absence of an Active Template

Enhancing precision in human neuroscience

Human neuroscience has always been pushing the boundary of what is measurable. During the last decade, concerns about statistical power and replicability - in science in general, but also specifically in human neuroscience - have fueled an extensive debate. One important insight from this discourse is the need for larger samples, which naturally increases statistical power. An alternative is to increase the precision of measurements, which is the focus of this review. This option is often overlooked, even though statistical power benefits from increasing precision as much as from increasing sample size. Nonetheless, precision has always been at the heart of good scientific practice in human neuroscience, with researchers relying on lab traditions or rules of thumb to ensure sufficient precision for their studies. In this review, we encourage a more systematic approach to precision. We start by introducing measurement precision and its importance for well-powered studies in human neuroscience. Then, determinants for precision in a range of neuroscientific methods (MRI, M/EEG, EDA, Eye-Tracking, and Endocrinology) are elaborated. We end by discussing how a more systematic evaluation of precision and the application of respective insights can lead to an increase in reproducibility in human neuroscience.

The Oddity Detection in Diverse Scenes (ODDS) database: Validated real-world scenes for studying anomaly detection

Many applied screening tasks (e.g., medical image or baggage screening) involve challenging searches for which standard laboratory search is rarely equivalent. For example, whereas laboratory search frequently requires observers to look for precisely defined targets among isolated, non-overlapping images randomly arrayed on clean backgrounds, medical images present unspecified targets in noisy, yet spatially regular scenes. Those unspecified targets are typically oddities, elements that do not belong. To develop a closer laboratory analogue to this, we created a database of scenes containing subtle, ill-specified "oddity" targets. These scenes have similar perceptual densities and spatial regularities to those found in expert search tasks, and each includes 16 variants of the unedited scene wherein an oddity (a subtle deformation of the scene) is hidden. In Experiment 1, eight volunteers searched thousands of scene variants for an oddity. Regardless of their search accuracy, they were then shown the highlighted anomaly and rated its subtlety. Subtlety ratings reliably predicted search performance (accuracy and response times) and did so better than image statistics. In Experiment 2, we conducted a conceptual replication in which a larger group of naïve searchers scanned subsets of the scene variants. Prior subtlety ratings reliably predicted search outcomes. Whereas medical image targets are difficult for naïve searchers to detect, our database contains thousands of interior and exterior scenes that vary in difficulty, but are nevertheless searchable by novices. In this way, the stimuli will be useful for studying visual search as it typically occurs in expert domains: Ill-specified search for anomalies in noisy displays.