Better off Alone

Sall, Robert; Feng, Jing

doi:10.1177/1541931213601331

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Drivers may also search for these targets while conducting ill-advised activities such as talking or texting on a cell phone -activities that further reduce the probability of spotting a hazard (Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003). Recent evidence shows that SSM errors are possible when traffic is at a standstill (Sall & Feng, 2016). Our results suggest that these errors are even more likely when traffic is moving.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often conduct visual searches in which multiple targets are possible (e.g., medical x-rays can contain multiple abnormalities). In this type of search, observers are more likely to miss a second target after having found a first one (a subsequent search miss). Recent evidence suggests that this effect may be due to a depletion of cognitive resources from tracking the identities and locations of found targets. Given that tracking moving objects is resource-demanding, would finding a moving target further increase the chances of missing a subsequent one? To address this question, we had participants search for one or more targets hidden among distractors. Subsequent search misses were more likely when targets and distractors moved throughout the display than when they remained stationary. However, when found targets were highlighted in a unique color, subsequent search misses were no more likely in moving displays. Together, these results suggest that the effect of movement was likely due to the increased cognitive demands of tracking moving targets. Overall, our findings reveal that activities that involve searching for moving targets (e.g., driving) are more susceptible to subsequent search misses than those that involve searching for stationary targets (e.g., baggage screening).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drivers may also search for these targets while conducting ill-advised activities such as talking or texting on a cell phone-activities that further reduce the probability of spotting a hazard (Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003). Recent evidence has shown that SSM errors are possible when traffic is at a standstill (Sall & Feng, 2016). Our results suggest that these errors are even more likely when traffic is moving.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Satisfaction in Motion: Subsequent Search Misses are More Likely in Moving Search Displays

Stothart¹,

Clement²,

Brockmole³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often conduct visual searches in which multiple targets are possible (e.g., medical X-rays can contain multiple abnormalities). In this type of search, observers are more likely to miss a second target after having found a first one (a subsequent search miss). Recent evidence has suggested that this effect may be due to a depletion of cognitive resources from tracking the identities and locations of found targets. Given that tracking moving objects is resource-demanding, would finding a moving target further increase the chances of missing a subsequent one? To address this question, we had participants search for one or more targets hidden among distractors. Subsequent search misses were more likely when the targets and distractors moved throughout the display than when they remained stationary. However, when the found targets were highlighted in a unique color, subsequent search misses were no more likely in moving displays. Together, these results suggest that the effect of movement is likely due to the increased cognitive demands of tracking moving targets. Overall, our findings reveal that activities that involve searching for moving targets (e.g., driving) are more susceptible to subsequent search misses than are those that involve searching for stationary targets (e.g., baggage screening).

show abstract

“…The interaction between these two types of processing is especially relevant in young drivers. Not only do young drivers have less experience with hazardous situations (and therefore possess less knowledge on how to avoid or mitigate such hazards), they may be at risk of becoming fixated on overt, salient hazards at the expense of missing less salient driving hazards (Sall & Feng, 2016). In basic visual attention research, it has been shown that topdown processes can override bottom-up attributes (Yantis & Egeth, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional Control in Young Drivers: Does Training Impact Hazard Anticipation in Dynamic Environments?

Yahoodik

Yamani

2020

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing is a way to characterize control of visual attention, but it has not been extensively applied to the driving domain. The Risk Awareness and Perception Training (RAPT) has been effective in improving drivers’ latent hazard anticipation, a top-down process. However, it is unclear whether RAPT protects drivers from being distracted by salient items on the roadway, diminishing latent hazard anticipation. The current driving simulator study examines the potential interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes by having RAPT-and Placebo-trained drivers navigate simulated environments with latent hazards and a stationary or dynamically moving pedestrian. While RAPT-trained drivers were better able to anticipate latent hazards than Placebo-trained drivers, presence of salient, bottom-up stimuli did not negatively impact hazard anticipation performance in either group. This implies RAPT-trained drivers were able to successfully divide their attention, anticipating latent hazards even in the presence of dynamic, driving-relevant objects.

show abstract

Better off Alone

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays

Satisfaction in Motion: Subsequent Search Misses are More Likely in Moving Search Displays

Attentional Control in Young Drivers: Does Training Impact Hazard Anticipation in Dynamic Environments?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About