Assessing the Impact of Prevalence Expectations on Radiologists' Behavior

Reed, Warren; Chow, Suet Ling Candice; Chew, Lay Ee; Brennan, Patrick C.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.06.001

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[19][20][21][22][23][24] Prevalence expectation is a phenomenon that has been shown to influence the performance of observers in mammography interpretation. [19][20][21][22][23][24] It is referred to as "the relationship between the prevalence of a particular image appearance and observer performance." 24 Considering that prevalence expectation holds true for mammography interpretation, it might influence the categorization of MBD by observers from different countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading

Damases

Hogg

McEntee

2017

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading

Damases

Hogg

McEntee

2017

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LPE is a robust finding that when targets are rare, they are missed disproportionately often relative to the same objects when target prevalence is high (Wolfe, Horowitz, & Kenner, 2005). This pattern arises even when observers merely think that targets are rare (Reed, Chow, Chew, & Brennan, 2014a, 2014b; Reed, Ryan, McEntee, Evanoff, & Brennan, 2011). In everyday search, the LPE may hinder search efficiency (e.g., a person might repeatedly overlook his or her keys, even though they are visible, because they are in a low-prevalence location), but the costs, beyond mild frustration, are minimal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search.

Hout¹,

Walenchok²,

Goldinger³

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In visual search, rare targets are missed disproportionately often. This low-prevalence effect (LPE) is a robust problem with demonstrable societal consequences. What is the source of the LPE? Is it a perceptual bias against rare targets or a later process, such as premature search termination or motor response errors? In 4 experiments, we examined the LPE using standard visual search (with eye tracking) and 2 variants of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) in which observers made present/absent decisions after sequences ended. In all experiments, observers looked for 2 target categories (teddy bear and butterfly) simultaneously. To minimize simple motor errors, caused by repetitive absent responses, we held overall target prevalence at 50%, with 1 low-prevalence and 1 high-prevalence target type. Across conditions, observers either searched for targets among other real-world objects or searched for specific bears or butterflies among within-category distractors. We report 4 main results: (a) In standard search, high-prevalence targets were found more quickly and accurately than low-prevalence targets. (b) The LPE persisted in RSVP search, even though observers never terminated search on their own. (c) Eye-tracking analyses showed that high-prevalence targets elicited better attentional guidance and faster perceptual decisions. And (d) even when observers looked directly at low-prevalence targets, they often (12%–34% of trials) failed to detect them. These results strongly argue that low-prevalence misses represent failures of perception when early search termination or motor errors are controlled.

show abstract

“…This is interesting because, as they note, there is a body of previous work suggesting that criterion is resistant to movement based on truthful feedback during the experiment. Criterion can be moved by explicit instructions before the block of trials (e.g., Reed et al, 2014 ; Littlefair et al, 2016 ). This makes one wonder if the effects reported here consist of block 1 acting as explicit instructions for block 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What you are told that you will see also has an impact. Thus, you will look harder if you are given information thatsuggests that it is likely that there is something to find (Reed et al, 2014 ; Littlefair et al, 2016 ). In this paper, we examine these effects together.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How one block of trials influences the next: persistent effects of disease prevalence and feedback on decisions about images of skin lesions in a large online study

Wolfe

2022

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using an online, medical image labeling app, 803 individuals rated images of skin lesions as either "melanoma" (skin cancer) or "nevus" (a skin mole). Each block consisted of 80 images. Blocks could have high (50%) or low (20%) target prevalence and could provide full, accurate feedback or no feedback. As in prior work, with feedback, decision criteria were more conservative at low prevalence than at high prevalence and resulted in more miss errors. Without feedback, this low prevalence effect was reversed (albeit, not significantly). Participants could participate in up to four different conditions a day on each of 6 days. Our main interest was in the effect of Block N on Block N + 1. Low prevalence with feedback made participants more conservative on a subsequent block. High prevalence with feedback made participants more liberal on a subsequent block. Conditions with no feedback had no significant impact on the subsequent block. The delay between Blocks 1 and 2 had no significant effect. The effect on the second half of Block 2 was just as large as on the first half. Medical expertise (over the range available in the study) had no impact on these effects, though medical students were better at the task than other groups. Overall, these seem to be robust effects where feedback may be 'teaching' participants how to respond in the future. This might have application in, for example, training or re-training situations.

show abstract

Assessing the Impact of Prevalence Expectations on Radiologists' Behavior

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading

Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading

Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search.

How one block of trials influences the next: persistent effects of disease prevalence and feedback on decisions about images of skin lesions in a large online study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About