From “satisfaction of search” to “subsequent search misses”: a review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science

Abstract

For over 50 years, the satisfaction of search effect has been studied within the field of radiology. Defined as a decrease in detection rates for a subsequent target when an initial target is found within the image, these multiple target errors are known to underlie errors of omission (e.g., a radiologist is more likely to miss an abnormality if another abnormality is identified). More recently, they have also been found to underlie lab-based search errors in cognitive science experiments (e.g., an observer is more likely to miss a target ‘T’ if a different target ‘T’ was detected). This phenomenon was renamed the subsequent search miss (SSM) effect in cognitive science. Here we review the SSM literature in both radiology and cognitive science and discuss: (1) the current SSM theories (i.e., satisfaction, perceptual set, and resource depletion theories), (2) the eye movement errors that underlie the SSM effect, (3) the existing efforts tested to alleviate SSM errors, and (4) the evolution of methodologies and analyses used when calculating the SSM effect. Finally, we present the attentional template theory, a novel mechanistic explanation for SSM errors, which ties together our current understanding of SSM errors and the attentional template literature.

Assessing satisfaction of search in virtual mammograms for experienced and novice searchers

“…While cognitive science has demonstrated support for the three theories: satisfaction, 6 – 8 perceptual set, 9 – 11 and resource depletion, 12 – 16 the theories remained disparate, with no mechanistic explanation for their predictions. More recently, the attentional template theory has been proposed, 17 which bridges the findings in support of each theory for a more unified, mechanistic explanation for SOS errors (See Fig. 1).…”

“…However, the interplay between attentional templates in visual working memory and long-term memory is still a ripe area of study 47 and our understanding of templates and their role in SOS errors is still in its infancy. 17 Another limitation was the potential memory effects searchers may have had for the matched images. While the matched images were necessary for the SOS calculation used in this study, it is likely searchers realized that images may have repeated (even though they were not explicitly told this).…”

“…(Previously published in Ref. 17): (a) attentional template theory tenets. An attentional template is known in cognitive science as an active representation of the search goal held within visual working memory.…”

Аффордансы Как Часть Процесса Идентификации Объекта В Зрительном Поиске

“…The resource depletion theory describes the effect of FLPP in terms of limited cognitive resources -the search for the first goal uses a lot of attention and working memory resources, as a result of which much less resources are left for the search for the second goal, which leads to skipping. Finally, perceptual set theory proposes that finding the first target (or setting the target stimulus through an image) forms a perceptual image that causes attention to be directed to similar objects, so that the probability of missing a second target (not similar to the one previously found) increases (Adamo et al, 2021). However, in addition to the ability to form a perceptual set, there is a possibility that the categorization of stimuli will affect the efficiency of visual search.…”

Comparing experts to novices: reduced satisfaction of search when searching with virtual breast tomosynthesis

“…They replicated the SOS effect with college students in simplified search images (i.e., searching for letter "T" targets amongst "L" distractors) suggesting that SOS is a "visual search problem" rather than a radiologyspecific problem (See Figure 1A). In other words, SOS can happen in different types of images (e.g., radiographic images and simplified images) and with different populations (e.g., radiologists and college students) 8 . 9 .…”