Traditional Visual Search vs. X-Ray Image Inspection in Students and Professionals: Are the Same Visual-Cognitive Abilities Needed?

Individual differences in visual search: A systematic review of the link between visual search performance and traits or abilities

Visual search (VS) comprises a class of tasks that we typically perform several times during a day and requires intentionally scanning (with or without moving the eyes) the environment for a specific target (be it an object or a feature) among distractor stimuli. Experimental research in lab-based or real-world settings has offered insight into its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms from a nomothetic point of view. A lesser-known but rapidly growing body of quasi-experimental and correlational research has explored the link between individual differences and VS performance. This combines different research traditions and covers a wide range of individual differences in studies deploying a vast array of VS tasks. As such, it is a challenge to determine whether any associations highlighted in single studies are robust when considering the wider literature. However, clarifying such relationships systematically and comprehensively would help build more accurate models of VS, and it would highlight promising directions for future research. This systematic review provides an up to date and comprehensive synthesis of the existing literature investigating associations between common indices of performance in VS tasks and measures of individual differences mapped onto four categories of cognitive abilities (short-term working memory, fluid reasoning, visual processing and processing speed) and seven categories of traits (Big Five traits, trait anxiety and autistic traits). Consistent associations for both traits (in particular, conscientiousness, autistic traits and trait anxiety - the latter limited to emotional stimuli) and cognitive abilities (particularly visual processing) were identified. Overall, however, informativeness of future studies would benefit from checking and reporting the reliability of all measurement tools, applying multiplicity correction, using complementary techniques, study preregistration and testing why, rather than only if, a robust relation between certain individual differences and VS performance exists.

Graded prioritisation of targets in search: reward diminishes the low prevalence effect

In many real-life contexts, observers are required to search for targets that are rarely present (e.g. tumours in X-rays; dangerous items in airport security screenings). Despite the rarity of these items, they are of enormous importance for the health and safety of the public, yet they are easily missed during visual search. This is referred to as the prevalence effect. In the current series of experiments, we investigate whether unequal reward can modulate the prevalence effect, in a multiple target search task. Having first established the impact of prevalence (Experiment 1) and reward (Experiment 2) on how efficiently participants can find one of several targets in the current paradigm, we then combined the two forms of priority to investigate their interaction. An unequal reward distribution (where lower prevalence items are more rewarded; Experiment 3) was found to diminish the effect of prevalence, compared to an equal reward distribution (Experiment 4) as indicated by faster response times and fewer misses. These findings suggest that when combined with an unequal reward distribution, the low prevalence effect can be diminished.

Time on task and task load in visual inspection: A four-month field study with X-ray baggage screeners

Previous studies suggest that performance in visual inspection and typical vigilance tasks depend on time on task and task load. European regulation mandates that security officers (screeners) take a break or change tasks after 20 min of X-ray baggage screening. However, longer screening durations could reduce staffing challenges. We investigated the effects of time on task and task load on visual inspection performance in a four-month field study with screeners. At an international airport, 22 screeners inspected X-ray images of cabin baggage for up to 60 min, while a control group (N = 19) screened for 20 min. Hit rate remained stable for low and average task loads. However, when the task load was high, the screeners compensated by speeding up X-ray image inspection at the expense of the hit rate over time on task. Our results support the dynamic-allocation resource theory. Moreover, extending the permitted screening duration to 30 or 40 min should be considered.

Can we disregard the whole model? Omnibus non-inferiority testing for R2 in multi-variable linear regression and η̂2 in ANOVA

Determining a lack of association between an outcome variable and a number of different explanatory variables is frequently necessary in order to disregard a proposed model (i.e., to confirm the lack of a meaningful association between an outcome and predictors). Despite this, the literature rarely offers information about, or technical recommendations concerning, the appropriate statistical methodology to be used to accomplish this task. This paper introduces non-inferiority tests for ANOVA and linear regression analyses, which correspond to the standard widely used F test for η̂2 and R² , respectively. A simulation study is conducted to examine the Type I error rates and statistical power of the tests, and a comparison is made with an alternative Bayesian testing approach. The results indicate that the proposed non-inferiority test is a potentially useful tool for 'testing the null'.

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the posterior parietal cortex on novice X-ray screening performance

Existing theories of visual search are generally deduced from lab-based studies involving the identification of a target object among similar distractors. The role of the right parietal cortex in visual search is well-established. However, less is known about real-world visual search tasks, such as X-ray screening, which require targets to be disembedded from their background. Research has shown variations in the cognitive abilities required for these tasks and typical lab-based visual search tasks. Thus, the findings of traditional visual search studies do not always transfer into the applied domain. Although brain imaging studies have offered insights into visual search tasks involving disembedding, highlighting an association between the left parietal cortex and disembedding performance, no causal link has yet been established. To this end, we carried out a pilot study (n = 34, between-subjects) administering non-invasive brain stimulation over the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) prior to completing a security X-ray screening task. The findings suggested that anodal left PPC tDCS enhanced novice performance in X-ray screening over that of sham stimulation, in line with brain imaging findings. However, the efficacy of tDCS is under question, with a growing number of failed replications. With this in mind, this study aims to re-test our original hypothesis by examining the effects of left-side parietal stimulation on novice X-ray screener performance and comparing them to those of sham stimulation and of stimulation on a control site (right PPC). As such, this within-subjects study comprised three sessions (2 mA left PPC, 2 mA right PPC, low-intensity sham stimulation left PPC), to investigate effects of anodal tDCS on X-ray screening performance. The pre-registered analysis did not detect any significant differences between left PPC tDCS and sham tDCS or left PPC tDCS and right PPC tDCS on novice performance (d') in X-ray screening. Further exploratory analyses detected no effects of left PPC tDCS on any other indices of performance in the X-ray security screening task (c, RTs and accuracy), or a disembedding control task (RTs and accuracy). The use of alternative stimulation techniques, with replicable behavioural effects on the parietal lobe (or a multi-technique approach), and well-powered studies with a systematic variation of stimulation parameters, could help to choose between two possible interpretations: that neither left nor right PPC are causally related to either tasks or that tDCS was ineffective. Finally, low-intensity sham stimulation (.016 mA), previously shown to outperform other sham conditions in between-subjects designs, was found to be ineffective for blinding participants in a within-subjects design. Our findings raise concerns for the current lack of optimal control conditions and add to the growing literature highlighting the need for replication in the field.